IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 5 June 2014
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20130017561
THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:
1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).
2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge be voided, that his disability rating be increased, and that he be retired by reason of permanent disability.
2. The applicant states he believes he should have been medically retired instead of being discharged.
3. The applicant provides copies of his medical records, a copy of his Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Proceedings, his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) and his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record).
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.
2. The applicant initially enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 January 1989. He completed his training, deployed to Southwest Asia (SWA) during the period 900822 910328 and on 1 February 1993 he was honorably released from active duty due to the expiration of his term of service (ETS). He had served
4 years of active service.
3. On 6 January 1998, he again enlisted in the Regular Army. On 24 March 1999 a MEB was convened at Fort Bragg, North Carolina that determined his condition of chronic bilateral knee pain with chronic right patellar tendonitis should be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The applicant agreed with the findings and recommendation of the MEB.
4. The applicants records do not contain of copy of his PEB and the applicant has not provided a copy. His MEB Narrative Summary is not available.
5. He served until he was honorably discharged due to disability with severance pay on 22 September 1999. He had served 1 year, 8 months and 17 days of active service during his current enlistment and was given a 10 percent disability rating and $17,823.60 in severance pay benefits.
6. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) provides that the mere presence of an impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the member may reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, rank, grade or rating.
7. Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permit the VA to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service. However, an award of a VA rating does not establish error or injustice in whether or not an Army rating is given, or in an Army rating that is given. An Army disability rating is intended to compensate an individual for interruption of a military career after it has been determined that the individual suffers from an impairment that disqualifies him or her from further military service. The VA, which has neither the authority, nor the responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service, awards disability ratings to veterans for conditions that it determines were incurred during military service and subsequently affect the individuals civilian employability. Accordingly, it is not unusual for the two agencies of the Government, operating under different policies, to arrive at different positions. Furthermore, unlike the Army, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agencys examinations and findings. The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge, thus compensating the individual for loss of a career; while the VA may rate any service connected impairment, including those that are detected after discharge, in order to compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability.
8. There is a difference between the VA and the Army disability systems. While both the VA and the Army use the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) to determine percentage ratings, not all of the general policies set forth in the VASRD apply to the Army; thus there are sometimes differences in ratings. The Army's determination of a Soldier's fitness or unfitness is a factual finding based on the individual's ability to perform the duties of his grade, rank, or rating. If the Soldier is found to be physically unfit, a disability rating is awarded by the Army and is permanent in nature. The Army system requires that the Soldier only be rated as the condition(s) exist(s) at the time of the physical evaluation board hearing. The VA may find a Soldier unfit by reason of service connected disability and may even initially assign a higher rating. VA ratings are based on an individual's ability to gain employment as a civilian and may fluctuate within a period of time depending upon the changes in the disability.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. In the absence of the applicants PEB proceedings and MEB Narrative Summary, it must be presumed that the applicants separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no violations or procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.
2. Accordingly, it appears that his discharge and percentage of disability directed were appropriate considering, all of the available facts of the case.
3. Absent evidence to show that he was denied his due process rights and that he was not afforded proper medical processing at the time of his separation, there appears to be no basis to grant his request.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
____x___ ____x___ ____x____ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
_______ _ x_______ ___
CHAIRPERSON
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130017561
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20130017561
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130018385
e. The PEB recommended the applicant's separation under the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD), code 5242; a 10-percent disability rating; and separation with disability severance pay. Once a Soldier is determined to be physically unfit for further military service, a percentage rating is applied to the unfitting condition from the VASRD. Except for this rated condition, there is no evidence of record that shows any of the other medical conditions the applicant was diagnosed with...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 2013001838
e. The PEB recommended the applicant's separation under the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD), code 5242; a 10-percent disability rating; and separation with disability severance pay. Once a Soldier is determined to be physically unfit for further military service, a percentage rating is applied to the unfitting condition from the VASRD. Except for this rated condition, there is no evidence of record that shows any of the other medical conditions the applicant was diagnosed with...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090008610
The PEB rated the applicant's condition 20 percent disabling and recommended separation with severance pay. Once a Soldier is determined to be physically unfit for further military service, percentage ratings are applied to the unfitting conditions from the VASRD. Although the applicant contends his disability rating should be changed to 30 percent and he should be placed on the Retired List, the evidence shows the PEB determined that he was unfit for further service and rated him at 20...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130015891
A DA Form 199 (PEB Proceedings) shows, on 31 July 1998, an informal PEB reviewed the applicant's MEB proceedings, along with her medical records, and found her physically unfit due to chronic low back pain and s/p lumbar discectomy, L5-S1 left. Upon review of the applicant's MEB proceedings, along with her medical records, the PEB found the applicant medically unfit due to chronic low back pain and status post lumbar discectomy (L5-S1 left). Except for the rated conditions, there is no...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021072
A DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings), dated 10 July 2012, shows an informal PEB reviewed the applicant's MEB proceedings, along with his medical records, a. Once a Soldier is determined to be physically unfit for further military service, a percentage rating is applied to the unfitting condition from the VASRD. b. Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition(s), although not considered physically unfitting for military service at...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140009397
The applicant requests, in effect, a reevaluation of his Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) proceedings because they failed to consider his conditions of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), bilateral hearing loss, and tinnitus that have been rated as service-connected by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Once a determination of physical unfitness is made, the PEB rates all disabilities using the VASRD. In this case, the available records show no...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004582
Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) governs the evaluation for physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of a physical disability. The available evidence clearly shows the applicant was medically unfit and evaluated by a PEB. The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably perform his or her duties and assign an appropriate disability rating before he or she can be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110019864
Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not considered physically unfit for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency. The available evidence shows he was medically unfit and evaluated by a PEB. Regardless of the percentage of disability awarded by the VA, an award of a VA rating does not establish...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120021545
The applicant provides copies of his: * Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) proceedings * Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) proceedings * VA rating decision CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The evidence of record shows the PEB considered the applicant's entire case file, including the LOD finding and his MEB proceedings. Records show that after the applicant's PEB findings and recommendations were approved, and the PEBLO provided the applicant information about applying for VA compensation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010289
A 28 August 1997 medical examination shows: a. the applicant's chief complaint was chronic knee pain. The evidence of record shows the diagnosis "Resolving Grade 1/2 ankle sprain on the right" was listed in the MEB proceedings. The available evidence shows the 8 October 1997 informal PEB found the applicant unfit due to chondromalacia patella in both knees with RPPS and awarded a 20-percent rating.