Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011530
Original file (20140011530.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

	

		BOARD DATE:	  25 September 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140011530 


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 correction of his retirement DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show his retired rank as sergeant (SGT)/E-5 instead of specialist (SPC)/E-4.  

2.  He states:

	a.  According to Title 10, U.S Code, section 1372, he should have been retired at the grade he would have been promoted to (E-5) had it not been for his disability for which he was retired.

	b.  He met all requirements to appear before the promotion board, but was not able to appear because a current Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) was required.  He could not take the APFT test due to his disability.  

   c.  He was also prevented from attending military classes for which he would have earned promotion points and no other classes were offered to him due to his profile for his disability.  If it wasn't for his disability, there would be no reason he wouldn't have been on the promotion list and promoted to E-5.

3.  He provides his retirement orders, DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form), and a memorandum.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 February 2009.  
2.  He was promoted to private first class/E-3 on 1 October 2009 and to SPC/E-4 on 1 December 2010.  

3.  On 1 November 2012, he was evaluated by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) while he was serving in the rank/pay grade of SPC/E-4.  After consideration of clinical records, laboratory findings, and a physical examination, the MEB found the applicant had the following medical conditions that fell below retention standards:

	a.  Cervical spondylosis and cervical myofascial pain syndrome;

	b.  Thoracic spondylosis and myofascial pain syndrome with thoracic strain; and 

	c.  Lumbar spondylosis and myofascial pain syndrome with lumbar strain.  

4.  He did not agree with the findings and recommendation of the MEB and was referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).  

5.  On 10 January 2013, he was again evaluated by an MEB while serving in the rank/pay grade of SPC/E-4.  The MEB found the applicant had the same medical conditions that did not meet retention standards as listed on the previous MEB.

6.  On 21 May 2014, a formal PEB determined he was physically unfit for thoracic/lumbar spondylosis, myofascial pain syndrome with thoracic/lumbar strain, and cervical spondylosis and cervical myosfascial pain syndrome.  The PEB Proceedings show his rank as "SPC."  The PEB recommended a disability rating of 30 percent and that the applicant's disposition be permanent disability retirement.  The applicant concurred with the PEB's findings and recommendations and did not request reconsideration of his Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) ratings.  

7.  He provided the following documents:

	a.  Memorandum, subject: Application for Attendance at Fort Carson, CO Troop School, dated 22 August 2011, which shows his company commander requested that the applicant be scheduled for the Troop School course, "Bus driver course" with a start date of 26 September 2011 and ending date of 30 September 2011.

	b.  DA Form 4856, dated 9 May 2012, which shows he was counseled regarding his non-recommendation to appear before the June promotion board.  The counseling official indicated he was not recommending the applicant to appear before the June promotion board.  The applicant was advised that he met the requirements for consideration under the primary zone; however, he was not fully eligible.  The counseling official stated the applicant still hadn't taken a current APFT due to his physical profile and he was required to have a current APFT in order to appear before the board.

   c.  Orders 150-0013, dated 30 May 2014, which show he was retired from active duty on 26 July 2014 by reason of physical disability and was placed on the Retired List in the rank of SPC on the following date.  He completed 5 years, 5 months, and 24 days of total active military service at the time of his retirement.

8.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1372, states that unless entitled to a higher retired grade under some other provision of law, any member of an Armed Force who is retired for physical disability under section 1201 or 1204 of this title, or whose name is placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) under section 1202 or 1205 of this title, is entitled to the grade equivalent to the highest of the following:

	a.  the grade or rank in which he is serving on the date when his name is placed on the TDRL or, if his name was not carried on that list, on the date when he is retired;

	b.  the highest temporary grade or rank in which he served satisfactorily, as determined by the Secretary of the Armed Force from which he is retired;

	c.  the permanent Regular or Reserve grade to which he would have been promoted had it not been for the physical disability for which he is retired and which was found to exist as a result of a physical examination; or

	d.  the temporary grade to which he would have been promoted had it not been for the physical disability for which he is retired, if eligibility for that promotion was required to be based on cumulative years of service or years of service in grade and the disability was discovered as a result of a physical examination.

9.  Army Regulation 600-8-19 (Enlisted Promotions and Reductions) prescribes the enlisted promotions and reductions function of the military personnel system.  Paragraph 5-7 (Eligibility for promotion selection board consideration) states that a passing APFT score on the APFT within 12 months of the date of the board is mandatory for promotion consideration (nonwaivable).  



DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant served on active duty from 3 February 2009 through 26 July 2014.

2.  The applicant was promoted to SPC/E-4 on 1 December 2010.

3.  The evidence of record shows he was counseled on 9 May 2012 regarding his non-recommendation to appear before the June promotion board to SGT/E-5.  At that time, he was informed that he met the requirements for consideration for promotion under the primary zone, but he hadn't taken a current APFT.  As a result, he was not fully eligible to appear before the SGT/E-5 promotion board.  His commander properly denied him promotion consideration based on the governing regulation.  

4.  Orders 150-0013, dated 30 May 2014, show he was retired from active duty on 26 July 2014 by reason of physical disability and was placed on the Retired List in the rank of SPC on the following date.  He completed 5 years, 5 months, and 24 days of total active military service at the time of his retirement.

5.  Based on Title 10, USC, Section 1372, since he was not in a promotable status, he should have been placed on the retired list at the highest rank satisfactorily held.  His highest grade held was SPC/E-4.  Therefore, he was properly placed on the retired list in July 2014 at the highest rank held, SPC/E-4.

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)                                         AR20140011530





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140011530



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02109

    Original file (PD-2014-02109.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of theVASRD standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. A pain specialist opined that thoracic and lumbar spondylosis and myofascial pain were the causes of the back pain, although imaging studies of the thoracic spine were normal. In the matter of the chronic thoracolumbar back pain condition and IAW VASRD §4.71a, the Board...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 00825

    Original file (PD 2012 00825.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board then considered its rating recommendation for the condition at the time of separation. The Board then considered its rating recommendation for the condition at the time of separation. RECOMMENDATION: The Board recommends that the CI’s prior determination be modified as follows, effective as of the date of his prior medical separation: UNFITTING CONDITION VASRD CODE RATING Chronic Low Back Pain 5237 10% Chronic Neck/Upper Back Myofascial Pain Syndrome 5099-5021 0 COMBINED 10% The...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01732

    Original file (PD2012 01732.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Upon InformalReconsideration following the appeal, the PEB adjudicated the cervical spine (subsuming myofascial pain) and lumbar spine conditions as unfitting, rated 10% each, citing criteria of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). Since the PEBadjudicated polyneuropathy and iliotibial band syndrome were integral to the VA “findings” cited in the application, members agreed that those conditions were appropriately included in the Board's scope of review; and, are...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-01150

    Original file (PD2012-01150.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW NAME: XX BRANCH OF SERVICE: MARINE CORPS CASE NUMBER: PD1201150 SEPARATION DATE: 20060415 BOARD DATE: 20130219 SUMMARY OF CASE: Data extracted from the available evidence of record reflects that this covered individual (CI) was an active duty LCpl /E-3 (0341/Mortarman), medically separated for a chronic pain disorder. The VA coded the myofascial pain syndrome with degenerative changes of the cervical spine, 5242, rated at 10%. ...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00307

    Original file (PD2011-00307.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    Neck and Back Pain Conditions . The examiner noted that the CI “has failed all conservative treatment measures and is not a surgical candidate and is unable to perform his military duties.” The IPEB of 9 November 2007 adjudicated the neck and upper back pain as two separate unfitting conditions; cervical strain, VA code 5237, at 10% disability and thoracic strain, VA code 5237, also at 10% disability for a combined 20% disability rating. RECOMMENDATION : The Board, therefore, recommends...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 00767

    Original file (PD 2012 00767.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudicated “neck and shoulder pain with degenerative cervical spondylosis” as unfitting and rated 0% IAW the US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) pain policy. ANALYSIS SUMMARY: The Board’s authority as defined in DoDI 6040.44, resides in evaluating the fairness of Disability Evaluation System (DES) fitness determinations and rating decisions for disability at the time of separation. RECOMMENDATION: The Board recommends that the CI’s prior...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00271

    Original file (PD2009-00271.docx) Auto-classification: Approved

    The medical basis for the separation was Myofascial Pain Syndrome w/Mid and Upper Back Pain. The Board also considered the condition of Left Shoulder Strain and unanimously determined this condition was not separately unfitting at the time of separation from service and therefore no disability rating is applied. The pertinent military records of the Department of the Air Force relating xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, be corrected to show that the diagnosis in her finding of unfitness was myofascial pain...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087261C070212

    Original file (2003087261C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    When the applicant was being boarded by a formal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), her counsel’s request for a continuance so the applicant could have another physical examination was denied. Although the applicant was disabled when she was released from active duty on 18 September 1997, she was not given incapacitation pay until 15 February 1998. When taking these facts and applying them to the applicant’s request for incapacitation pay, there is no indication that the applicant was unable...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD 2013 00095

    Original file (PD 2013 00095.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    Despite the CI’s remarks of pain during portions of flexion of both knees, the VA C&P noted that examination of his knee on 10 June 2003 “ was grossly unremarkable” the examiner of on to state that the knee examination revealed “ no soft tissue swelling, no point tenderness, or joint effusion and there was no ligamentous instability appreciated.” After due deliberation in consideration of the preponderance of the evidence, the Board concluded there was insufficient cause to recommend a...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00219

    Original file (PD2009-00219.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    Preceding text in the NARSUM, the VA documentation and the service treatment record (STR) all make it clear that both the myofascial condition and the cervical nerve root pathology evidenced in this case affected the right upper extremity (RUE). It should be noted that the combination of the separately listed DA Form 3947 cervical conditions into a single rating is appropriate since separate VASRD ratings are not possible. The Board therefore recommends that the cervical spine condition be...