ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 30 June 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20200003429 APPLICANT REQUESTS: physical disability retirement in lieu of physical disability separation with severance pay APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: .DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) .DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile) .U.S. Combined Arms Command and Fort Leavenworth memorandum, dated 1 February 1993 .Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Narrative Summary (NARSUM), dated 12 February 1993 .DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings), dated 5 March1993 .Unclassified Department of the Army (DA) Message, dated 23 April 1993 .DA Form 3647 (Inpatient Treatment Record Cover Sheet), dated 10 May 1993 FACTS: 1.The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10, UnitedStates Code, section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of MilitaryRecords (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is inthe interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2.The applicant states she would like her status changed from medical discharge tomedical retirement due to her ongoing treatment, to include having had four surgeries,one of which was a failed partial right knee replacement which has delayed surgery onher left knee. 3.The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 September 1985. 4.A DA Form 3349 shows the applicant was given a permanent physical profile ratingof “3” for lower extremities on 1 September 1992, due to knee pain; patella femoralsyndrome. Her assignment limitations included no repetitive stairs and she was unableto do the 2 mile run for the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT). 5.U.S. Combined Arms Command and Fort Leavenworth memorandum, dated 1 February 1993, shows: a.The applicant was evaluated by a military occupational specialty (MOS)/MedicalRetention Board (MMRB). b.Based on a thorough review of her most recent permanent physical profile and allother pertinent records, the MMRB determined the limitations imposed by her permanent physical profile were so prohibitive they precluded her retraining and reclassification into any other MOS in which the Army had a requirement. c.The applicant was directed to be scheduled for an MEB and it was directed hercase would be forwarded to a PEB regardless of the MEB findings and recommendations. 6.An MEB NARSUM, dated 12 February 1993, shows: a.The applicant was referred to an MEB by the MMRB for recalcitrant bilateral kneepain. Her other medical history included a cone cervical biopsy in September 1987 and an appendectomy in September 1988. She additionally noted occasional sinus problems, migraine headaches, and hay fever. She was currently using anti-inflammatories for pain. b.Her bilateral knee pain bothered her with stair climbing, long standing, longdistance walking or sitting for long periods of time and driving with knees bent. She noted she hurt her knee in April 1992, but is now having bilateral knee pain with activity which was not relieved with her profile restrictions, physical therapy, and anti-inflammatory medication. c.Both knees ranged from full extension to 135 of flexion. The knees were stable tovarus and valgus stress. She had negative drawer, Lachman, and pivot shift. The patella appeared to track normally. There was pain with patellofemoral compression, but no apprehension. Her hips externally rotated to 45 and internally rotated to 60 degrees bilaterally. Quadriceps angles were 15 degrees. She did not have excessive lateral tilt. Films of both knew were unremarkable. d.The impression was of bilateral patellofemoral pain syndrome. The applicant wasdeemed not combat fit nor world-wide deployable. It was not expected that her condition would recover sufficiently that she could resume duties required of her grade and MOS. Her separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) was recommended. 7.A DA Form 199, dated 5 March 1993, shows: a.The applicant underwent a PEB on the date of form was found physically unfitwith a combined rating of 10 percent for bilateral patellofemoral pain syndrome (MEB diagnosis 1). b.The PEB recommended the applicant’s disposition be separation with severancepay. 8.An Unclassified DA Message, dated 23 April 1993, shows the applicant was to behonorably discharged with severance pay effective 10 May 1993, per PEBrecommendation, under the authority of Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluationfor Retention, Retirement, or Separation) with a 10 percent disability rating. Thismessage was the authority for the applicant’s discharge. 9.A DA Form 3647, dated 10 May 1993, shows the following: .on 17 February 1993, an MEB recommended referral to the PEB .on 5 March 1993, the PEB recommended the applicant’s separation withseverance pay with a 10 percent disability rating .on 10 May 1993, DA orders separated the applicant from the service withseverance pay under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, with a 10 percent disability rating .the applicant’s diagnosis was bilateral patellofemoral pain syndrome 10.The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from ActiveDuty), shows she was honorably discharged on 10 May 1993, under the provisions ofArmy Regulation 635-40, due to physical disability with severance pay. She completed7 years, 8 months, and 7 days of net active service this period. 11.Based on the applicant’s condition the Army Review Boards Agency medical staffprovided a medical review for the Board members. See "MEDICAL REVIEW" section. MEDICAL REVIEW: The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor was asked to review this case. Documentation reviewed included the applicant’s ABCMR application and accompanying documentation, the military electronic medical record (AHLTA), the VA electronic medical record (JLV), the electronic Physical Evaluation Board (ePEB), the Medical Electronic Data Care History and Readiness Tracking (MEDCHART) application, and the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS). The ARBA Medical Advisor made the following findings and recommendations: a.The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting an increase in her militarydisability rating and that her disability discharge disposition be changed from separated with severance pay to permanent retirement for physical disability. She states: “I would like to change my status form medical discharge to medical retirement. Due to continued treatment to include having my 4th surgery, with the 3rd surgery being a failed partial right knee replacement which has delayed surgery on my left knee.” b.The Record of Proceedings details the applicant’s military service and thecircumstances of the case. Documentation shows she was separated with disability severance pay on 10 May 1993 under provisions in paragraph 4-24b(3) of AR 635-40, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation (1 September 1990). c.On 17 February 1993, a medical evaluation board determined the applicant hadbilateral patellofemoral pain syndrome which failed medical retention standards. d.On 5 March 1993, her informal physical evaluation board found her bilateralpatellofemoral pain syndrome an unfitting condition for continued service, and recommended the applicant be separated from severance pay. “It is noted that your disability rating is less than 30 percent. For Soldiers with a disability rating of less than 30 percent and with less than 20 years of service, AR 635-40 requires separation from service with severance pay.” e.There is no evidence the applicant had additional conditions which failed medicalretention standards or were unfitting prior to her separation with severance pay; or that any additional medical condition(s) prevented the applicant from being able to reasonably perform the duties of her office, grade, rank, or rating prior to her discharge. f.Review of her records in JLV shows she has been awarded multiple VA serviceconnected disabilities, several of which are related to her knee(s). However, the DES has neither the role nor the authority to compensate service members for anticipated future severity or potential complications of conditions incurred during or were permanently aggravated by their military service. These roles and authorities are granted by Congress to the Department of Veterans Affairs and executed under a different set of laws. g.It is the opinion of the Agency Medical Advisor that neither a change in her militarydisability ratings nor a referral of her case to the DES is warranted. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The applicant’s contentions, the military record, a medical review, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. Based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the Board concurred with the advising official’s findings and recommendation. The Board determined there is insufficient evidence that shows referral into the DES is warranted. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :XX XX :XX DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. 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. REFERENCES: 1.Title 10, United States Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications forcorrection of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the allegederror or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant'sfailure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the Army Board forCorrection of Military Records (ABCMR) determines it would be in the interest of justiceto do so. 2.Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, provides the Secretaries of the Military Departmentswith authority to retire or discharge a member if they find the member unfit to performmilitary duties because of physical disability. The U.S. Army Physical Disability Agencyis responsible for administering the Army physical disability evaluation system andexecutes Secretary of the Army decision-making authority as directed by Congress inchapter 61 and in accordance with DOD Directive 1332.18 and Army Regulation 635-40(Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation). 3.Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, orSeparation) establishes the Army Disability Evaluation System and sets forth policies,responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfitbecause of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank,or rating. Only the unfitting conditions or defects and those which contribute tounfitness will be considered in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity warrantingretirement or separation for disability. 4.Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) governs medical fitnessstandards for enlistment, induction, appointment (including officer procurementprograms), retention, and separation (including retirement). The Department ofVeterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). VASRD is used by the Armyand the VA as part of the process of adjudicating disability claims. It is a guide forevaluating the severity of disabilities resulting from all types of diseases and injuriesencountered as a result of or incident to military service. This degree of severity isexpressed as a percentage rating which determines the amount of monthlycompensation. 5.Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of amember who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rating of at least 30 percent.Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of amember who has less than 20 years of service and a disability rating of less than 30percent. //NOTHING FOLLOWS//