BOARD DATE: 12 July 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150005749 BOARD VOTE: ___x_____ ___x_____ __x___ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 12 July 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150005749 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. correcting the applicant's records to show he suffered a sensory loss of the left eye resulting from a traumatic event on 4 June 2011; b. correcting the applicant's records to show his injury met Traumatic Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (TSGLI) guidelines, in that his visual acuity was 20/200 or less (worst) with corrective lens and his loss of vision will not improve (with reasonable certainty) throughout his life; and c. correcting the applicant's records to show his SGLV Forms 8600 (Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance Traumatic Injury Protection Program (TSGLI)) were approved on 17 April 2012. ___________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. BOARD DATE: 12 July 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150005749 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: The applicant requests, in effect and through counsel, an appeal review of the denial of his Traumatic Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (TSGLI) claim to show he is entitled to payment for a left eye injury. The applicant defers to counsel for all arguments and evidence. COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Counsel requests, in effect, that the applicant be granted TSGLI benefits for the injury he sustained. 2. Counsel states, in effect, the applicant is appealing the finding that he did not suffer an injury that qualifies as a loss, and asking that the decision be reversed and benefits be provided. The findings are not consistent with the submitted evidence and medical documentation. The uncontroverted evidence in his medical records show his vision went from 20/200 or worse to 20/20 correctable, which did not qualify for TSGLI, to 20/200 or worse to 20/20 uncorrectable after his traumatic event, which does qualify for TSGLI payment. 3. Counsel provides the following as evidence: * proof and acknowledgement of representation * TSGLI Procedures Guide, page 13, titled "Sensory Losses" * a letter from the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), dated 19 March 2015, which notified the applicant that he had exhausted his appeal rights with the Special Compensation Branch, TSGLI * a letter from counsel to HRC, subject: (Applicant's) appeal and Request for Reconsideration - New and Material Evidence, dated 16 January 2015 * a letter from T.B., RN, Independent Nurse Reviewer, of Colorado Springs, Colorado, dated 16 January 2015 * a computer disc (CD) containing digital copies of all previous claims, evidence, appeals, denial letters, and approximately 950 medical documents and clinical notes from multiple Army hospitals 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 October 2006. He competed his initial entry training and was awarded military occupational specialty 12B (Combat Engineer). The highest rank/grade he attained while serving on active duty was sergeant (SGT)/E-5. 3. He deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) from 18 December 2010 through 13 June 2011, a period of 5 months and 26 days before he was injured. 4. The Special Compensation Branch, TSGLI provided a summary of the applicant's case submissions, which show: * the applicant's initial application for TSGLI was received on or about 21 July 2011 and was denied on 2 August 2011 * his application for reconsideration was received on or about 5 October 2011 and was denied on 4 January 2012 * his appeal application was received on or about 2 February 2012 and was denied on 17 April 2012 5. The applicant's record contains an SGLV Form 8600, dated 2 July 2011. This form, accompanied by 19 pages of medical documents, shows: a. Part A (Member's Claim Information and Authorization) was completed by the applicant. He stated in Item 3 (Traumatic Injury Information), he was hit by an IED in Afghanistan on 4 June 2011 and he lost his vision in his left eye. He also states he had a hair line skull fracture on both sides of his skull. b. Part B (Medical Professional's Statement) was not completely filled out. Item 2 (Reason for Inpatient Hospitalization) indicates the predominant reason was "other traumatic injury." It indicates he was transported and admitted to the hospital on 4 June 2011 but it does not contain a discharge date. However, the block labeled "Name and location of hospital" has "Afghanistan to CRDAMC [Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center], Fort Hood, Texas written in it. Block 7 is signed by a medical professional on 18 July 2011. 6. The applicant received a letter on 3 August 2011, from the Office of SGLI, administrator of the TSGLI Program. The letter stated the following: a. The applicant's claim for loss of sight-left eye and for hospitalization due to other traumatic injuries could not be approved. b. The applicant's claim for loss of eyesight-left eye was not approved because there is not enough medial information to support his loss(es). Under TSGLI, loss of eyesight is defined as it must be expected to be permanent or have lasted at least 120 days and as any of the following: * a loss of visual acuity of 20/200 or worse with corrective lenses * a visual field of 20 degrees or worse * the complete anatomical loss of the eye c. The applicant's claim for hospitalization was not approved because his loss did not meet the TSGLI standard. Under TSGLI, hospitalization is defined as an inpatient hospital stay that lasts for 15 or more consecutive days in a hospital or series of hospitals. 7. He submitted another SGLV Form 8600 for reconsideration of his case on or about 5 October 2011 (per the fax date on the form). This form, accompanied by 5 pages of new medical documents, shows the exact reasoning and is dated and signed by the applicant and the medical professional, as was the case in the initial SGLV Form 8600. 8. The TSGLI Branch Chief informed the applicant, on 13 January 2012, that the Army TSGLI Program Office reconsidered its decision in his previous claim and was unable to overturn the previous adjudication. It stated that the documentation he provided by means of fax for vision loss of his left eye, 120 days post injury, came through as unreadable. The office attempted to contact him twice to obtain the documents, but the number on file did not work. It requested that the applicant re-send a legible vision documentation, 120 days post injury, so they could better adjudicate his claim. 9. The applicant submitted another SGLV Form 8600 on or about 22 February 2012, appealing the previously denied claims, including 19 medical documents as supporting evidence. They appear to be the same medical documents as previous submitted with his other claims. 10. The TSGLI Branch Chief informed the applicant, on 17 April 2012, that the Army TSGLI Program Office received his appeal request and was unable to overturn the previous adjudication. In addition, he informed the applicant that he could appeal the decision to the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA). It stated the following rationale as denying the appeal: The vision examination provided indicated that you met TSGLI vision loss criteria due to your vision being at least 20/200 or worse; however, you met this standard prior to your traumatic event. The documentation did not indicate that your qualifying vision loss was caused by a traumatic event covered under the TSGLI guidelines. 11. A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) was convened on 9 October 2013 and after consideration of clinical records, laboratory findings, and physical examinations, the MEB determined the applicant was medically unacceptable due to macular schisis [an eye disease characterized by the abnormal splitting of the retina's neurosensory layers, usually in the outer plexiform layer], left eye; Juvenile open-angle glaucoma, bilateral eyes. a. The MEB also considered the additional diagnoses and found them to be medically acceptable: TBI (traumatic brain injury); mild concussion, resolved; right shoulder strain; right elbow strain; bilateral knee strain (VA: left knee strain; right knee strain); lumbar disc disease; and frequent bilateral tinnitus. b. The MEB recommended the applicant’s referral to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The MEB findings and recommendation were approved on 16 October 2013. The applicant was counseled and agreed with the board's findings and recommendation on 17 October 2013. 12. An informal PEB convened at Fort Sam Houston, Texas on 28 March 2014. It determined that his diagnoses of bilateral juvenile glaucoma and left macular schisis that was first diagnosed in 2007 in CONUS when the Soldier was first evaluated by an ophthalmologist. It further stated the following: Since juvenile glaucoma is a genetic disorder, it clearly existed prior to service, but the condition was permanently aggravated by military service when the Solder experienced an acute decline in visual acuity in the left eye as the result of an IED blast in Afghanistan in 2011 (emphasis added). Therefore, the condition is compensable. Despite multiple treatment modalities, to include multiple surgeries, the Soldier continues to experience a significant loss of visual acuity in the left eye. Corrected vision in the left eye is 10/200 and the VA examiner states the Soldier only has light perception in the left eye (emphasis added). IAW DoDI 1332.38 [Physical Disability Evaluation], this is unfitting because it prevents the Soldier from performing the duties of his MOS which include operating heavy engineering vehicles. His profile prohibits him from operating heavy machinery because of the loss of vision in his left eye. 13. The PEB rated his condition under the VA Schedule of Rating Disabilities (VASRD) codes 6013-6066, with a 30 percent disability rating. The PEB recommended that he be separated with a permanent disability retirement. It further stated his disability did result from a combat-related injury (emphasis added). He concurred with the findings and recommendations and waived a formal hearing of his case on 8 April 2014. The PEB's findings and recommendation were approved by the U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) on 15 April 2014. 14. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) confirms he was retired on 14 July 2014 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), chapter 4, by reason of disability, permanent (enhanced). He completed 7 years, 9 months, and 3 days of net active service this period. It shows he was awarded the Purple Heart and the Afghanistan Campaign Medal with 2 campaign stars. 15. The applicant, through counsel, provided a letter from a T.B., RN, of Colorado Springs, Colorado, dated 16 January 2015, which restates the applicant's medical condition and concludes the applicant does qualify for TSGLI benefits. This individual's connection to the hospital, doctors, or applicant is unclear; however, he/she is presumed to be an independent medical reviewer. The letter, in effect, states the following: a. In summary, the applicant suffered a traumatic injury on 4 June 2011; specifically, he suffered a traumatic brain injury with a left eye injury following an IED blast while in Afghanistan. The vehicle he was riding in was thrown approximately 6 feet into the air. He had an immediate loss of vision in his left eye. He was medevac'd to Kandahar Air Base for emergency care. Then, he was transported to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Germany and then CONUS. Over the years, follow up and treatment failed to correct his vision. b. It also states the applicant has a history of bilateral Juvenile Diabetic Glaucoma and left macular schisis for which he underwent several surgeries. Optometry records dated 13 October 2010 show visual acuity in his left eye was 20/200 uncorrected, 20/20 corrected. This allowed him to be considered fit for duty. However, injuries from the IED blast in 2011 caused a retinal hemorrhage resulting in permanent, uncorrectable vision of OS 20/400. c. His PEB dated 28 March 2014, stated, "This condition was diagnosed in 2007 in CONUS when the Soldier was first evaluated by an ophthalmologist. Since juvenile glaucoma is a genetic disorder, it clearly existed prior to service, but the condition was permanently aggravated by military service when the Soldier experienced an acute decline in visual acuity in the left eye as the result of an IED blast in Afghanistan in 2011(V1/V3-Yes). Therefore, the condition is compensable. Despite multiple treatment modalities, to include multiple surgeries, the Soldier continues to experience a significant loss of visual acuity in the left eye. Corrected vision in the left eye is 10/200 and the VA examiner states the Soldier only has light perception in the left eye." (Note: 10/200 visual acuity converts to 20/400 visual acuity). d. It cannot be disputed by his medical documentation that although his visual acuity was 20/200 OS uncorrected and 20/20 OS corrected prior to the IED blast, permanent injury from the IED blast caused his vision to worsen and prevent him from being fit for duty with subsequent medical discharge from the Army. e. It further states the applicant reports he now wears protective eyewear, as his left eye vision is uncorrectable. Prior to his injury, vision in his left eye was correctable. His current eyewear is UV sensitive, protects against all light sensitivity and prevents further injury. (Applicant) has clearly suffered serious permanent injury that is uncorrectable to his left eye as the result of the IED blast in Afghanistan resulting in his loss of vision. 16. The applicant's counsel provides a CD which includes the medical records associated with his claims. A review of these records and records from his official military personnel file (OMPF) revealed: a. DA Form 2808 (Report of Medical Examination) dated 7 September 2006, the applicant's initial enlistment examination shows his vision in his right eye being 20/200 [sic] and corrected to 20/20 and his left eye as 20/20; which the physician determined him qualified for military service. [It is assumed the vision in the eyes was a transposition error on the form]. b. A clinical note from the CRDAMC, dated 13 October 2010 stated the applicant's reason for an appointment was "fit for duty" as part of the Soldier Readiness Processing (SRP). It is assumed it was part of his process prior to his October 2010 OEF deployment. The attending physician stated he was fit for duty and met deployment standards with his left eye vision being 20/200 uncorrected and 20/20 corrected, and his right eye vision being 20/20 uncorrected and 20/20 corrected. c. The applicant claims the traumatic event occurred on 4 June 2011. In counsel's letter, he states that the applicant while on a mechanized patrol in Afghanistan was riding in the back of a vehicle that was hit by an improvised explosive device (IED). The vehicle was thrown approximately 6 feet in the air. He suffered a traumatic brain injury and left eye injury. He was diagnosed with a retinal hemorrhage and subsequent follow up and treatment failed to restore his vision. d. A clinical note from the Theater Facility, Theater Clinic evaluated the applicant on the same date of the traumatic event. It stated he has a previous history of a left eye condition and also had 9 surgeries to correct acute glaucoma in the left eye. His vision was evaluated as the left eye being 20/400 uncorrected and his right being 20/25 uncorrected and the applicant complained of wavy lines in his vision and headaches. e. A clinical note from a military medical facility in Heidelberg [Germany] on 8 June 2011 (four days after his traumatic event) stated the applicant was examined for a left eye retinal hemorrhage due to a concussive blast for a disposition status. A computed tomography (CT) scan was also conducted and the attending physician concluded: CT performed of the orbits and show OD (right eye) lateral rim fracture non-displaced, no evidence of left rim fracture as patient had indicated he had past old left rim fracture. Right rim does not require surgery and possibly old fracture. There is no evidence of any foreign body related to trauma ou. Patient does have macular schisis s/p surgery in the past and multiple glaucoma surgeries with shunts giving him very poor vision OS but there has been no change in his eye status from before deployment. Soldier is to return to duty. f. A clinical note from the Theater Facility, Theater Clinic dated 11 June 2011 diagnosed the applicant with retina hemorrhage, glaucoma, and mild TBI and determined he be sent back to the United States. It provided medication and eye drops for the hemorrhage and did not provide a vision finding. g. Numerous clinical notes and ophthalmology evaluations dating from 15 June 2011 until on or about 7 May 2014, show evidence of his vision in his left eye as being 20/200 uncorrected and that most of his medical treatment focused on his glaucoma. The numerous medical documents, of which many are indecipherable, do not definitively articulate what his corrected vision or exact degree of visual acuity is in his left eye. REFERENCES: 1. Public Law 109-13 (The Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief 2005) signed by the President on 11 May 2005 established the TSGLI program. U.S. Army Combat-Related Special Compensation has been designated as the lead agent for implementing the Army TSGLI program. The TSGLI program was established by Congress to provide relief to Soldiers and their families after suffering a traumatic injury. TSGLI provides between $25,000.00 and $100,000.00 to severely injured Soldiers who meet the requisite qualifications set forth by the Department of Defense. 2. Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), governs the medical fitness standards for induction, enlistment, appointment, retention, and related policies and procedures. Chapter 3 gives the various medical conditions and physical defects which may render a Soldier unfit for further military service and which fall below the standard required of the individuals. a. Paragraph 3-15, state the causes for referral to an MEB for eyes as follows: (1) Active eye disease or any progressive organic disease or degeneration, regardless of the stage of activity, that is resistant to treatment and affects the distant visual acuity or visual fields so that distant visual acuity does not meet the standard stated in paragraph 3–16e or the diameter of the field of vision in the better eye is less than 20 degrees. (2) Aphakia, bilateral. (3) Atrophy of the optic nerve due to disease. (4) Glaucoma, if resistant to treatment or affecting visual fields as in a above, or if side effects of required medication are functionally incapacitating. (5) Degenerations, when vision does not meet the standards of paragraph 3–16e, or when vision is correctable only by the use of contact lenses or other special corrective devices (telescopic lenses, etc.). (6) Diseases and infections of the eye, when chronic, more than mildly symptomatic, progressive, and resistant to treatment after a reasonable period. This includes intractable allergic conjunctivitis inadequately controlled by medications and immunotherapy. (7) Residuals or complications of injury or disease, when progressive or when reduced visual acuity does not meet the criteria stated in paragraph 3–16e. (8) Unilateral detachment of retina if any of the following exists: (a) Visual acuity does not meet the standard stated in paragraph 3–16e. (b) The visual field in the better eye is constricted to less than 20 degrees. (c) Uncorrectable diplopia exists. (d) Detachment results from organic progressive disease or new growth, regardless of the condition of the better eye. (9) Bilateral detachment of retina, regardless of etiology or results of corrective surgery. b. Paragraph 3-16, state the causes for referral to an MEB for vision as follows: (1) Aniseikonia, with subjective eye discomfort, neurologic symptoms, sensations of motion sickness and other gastrointestinal disturbances, functional disturbances and difficulties in form sense, and not corrected by iseikonica lenses. (2) Binocular diplopia, not correctable by surgery, that is severe, constant, and in a zone less than 20 degrees from the primary position. (3) Hemianopsia, of any type if bilateral, permanent, and based on an organic defect. Those due to a functional neurosis and those due to transitory conditions, such as periodic migraine, are not considered to fall below required standards. (4) Night blindness, of such a degree that the Soldier requires assistance in any travel at night. (5) Visual acuity. (a) Vision that cannot be corrected with ordinary spectacle lenses (contact lenses or other special corrective devices (telescopic lenses, and so forth) are unacceptable) to at least: 20/40 in one eye and 20/100 in the other eye, or 20/30 in one eye and 20/200 in the other eye, or 20/20 in one eye and 20/800 in the other eye, or (b) An eye has been enucleated [removal of the eye]. (6) Visual field with bilateral concentric constriction to less than 20 degrees. 3. As of 1 December 2005, TSGLI is included as part of a Soldier's SGLI coverage. Any Soldier who elected SGLI coverage automatically receives TSGLI coverage with an additional $1.00 deducted each month to cover the cost of the TSGLI policy. Soldiers paying for SGLI coverage cannot decline TSGLI -- it is a package. In addition, there is a retroactive program in which Soldiers who incurred a qualifying traumatic injury between 7 October 2001 and 30 November 2005 while supporting OIF and OEF or under orders in a combat zone tax exclusion area are covered regardless of whether they elected SGLI coverage or not. Soldiers who elect SGLI coverage and incur a qualifying traumatic injury after 1 December 2005 (with the exception of some specific circumstances under which a traumatic injury will not be covered), regardless of their component (Active, Reserve, or National Guard) or the location in which they incurred the injury, will be covered by TSGLI. 4. A qualifying traumatic injury is an injury or loss caused by application of external force or violence (a traumatic event) or a condition whose cause can be directly linked to a traumatic event. Traumatic injuries covered may include, but are not limited to the following types of losses: a. total and permanent loss of sight in one or both eyes; b. loss of hand or foot by severance at or above the wrist or ankle; c. total and permanent loss of hearing in one or both ears; d. loss of speech; e. loss of thumb and index finger of the same hand by severance at or above the metacarpophalangeal joints; f. quadriplegia, paraplegia, or hemiplegia; g. third degree or worse burns covering 30 percent of the body or 30 percent of the face; h. coma or traumatic brain injury; or i. other traumatic injuries resulting in the inability to carry out two of the six ADL, which are dressing, bathing, toileting, eating, continence, and transferring. TSGLI claims may be filed for loss of ADL if the claimant is completely dependent on someone else to perform two of the six ADL for 30 days or more (15 days or more in the case of traumatic brain injuries). ADL loss must be certified by a healthcare provider in part B of the claim form and ADL loss must be substantiated by appropriate documentation, such as occupational/physical therapy reports, patient discharge summaries, or other pertinent documents demonstrating the injury type and duration of ADL loss. While TSGLI claims will not be approved without a certification from a healthcare provider, additional documentation must be provided to substantiate the certification. 5. The TSGLI Procedural Guide, version 2.30, dated 13 March 2015, provides the definition and criteria for the 9 categories of loss(es) covered under the TSGLI guidelines of which sensory losses is one. There are three sensory losses covered under TSGLI: loss of sight, loss of hearing and loss of speech. a. Total and permanent loss of sight OR loss of sight that has lasted 120 days. When a member has a loss of sight, the member is eligible for a TSGLI benefit for total and permanent loss of sight if the member meets one of the following three standards: If the member’s visual acuity in at least one eye is… And their peripheral vision in at least one eye is… And the loss of vision … 1. 20/200 or less (worse) with corrective lenses N/A has lasted at least 120 days OR will not improve (with reasonable certainty) throughout member’s life. 2. Greater (better) than 20/200 with corrective lenses a visual field of 20 degrees or less has lasted at least 120 days OR will not improve (with reasonable certainty) throughout member’s life. 3. Non-existent due to complete loss of the eye(s) N/A N/A b. Payment for total and permanent loss of sight or loss of sight that has lasted 120 days for each eye is $50,000. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant's request for review and consideration of his TSGLI appeal, and for TSGLI benefits for the eye injury he sustained, was carefully considered. 2. The evidence shows the applicant suffered a traumatic injury by an IED blast in Afghanistan on 4 June 2011. He was initially diagnosed with retinal hemorrhage and complained of headaches and wavy lines in his vision. His vision was evaluated at 20/400 uncorrected and his right being 20/25 uncorrected. He was eventually sent back to the United States due to retina hemorrhage, glaucoma, and mild TBI. 3. His record contain numerous notes and evaluations showing evidence of his vision in his left eye as being problematic, being affected by the IED blast, and most treatment focusing on his glaucoma. While the applicant and counsel concede his history of glaucoma; many of his medical documents are indecipherable and do not definitively articulate what his corrected vision or the exact degree of visual acuity is in his left eye nor what the degree of damage or the long-term effect on his eye as a result of the IED blast. 4. The Army TSGLI Program Office denial of benefits was mostly predicated on a lack of enough medical documentation and the indecipherability of those documents for both the initial and reconsideration claims. The appeal request was denied based on the rationale that his vision being at least 20/200 or worst was met under TSGLI vision loss criteria, but that he met this standard prior to the traumatic event; therefore, his loss was not covered/caused by a traumatic event. However, the applicant was medically boarded through the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) process that after an evaluation and a review of his records determined his sight was permanently aggravated and experienced a decline in visual acuity as a result of his traumatic event. Consequently, the ambiguity of the Army TSGLI Program Office reviews should have lean in favor of a wounded warrior. 5. In accordance with TSGLI guideline, when a member's visual acuity in at least one eye is 20/200 or less (worst) with corrective lenses and the loss of vision has lasted at least 120 days or will not improve (with reasonable certainty) throughout the member's life, a payment for loss of $50,000 is made. 6. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant was eventually discharged from military service by a PEB that stated that although his juvenile glaucoma, a genetic disorder that clearly existed prior to service, was permanently aggravated by military service, he experienced an acute decline in visual acuity in the left eye as the result of an IED blast in Afghanistan in 2011 (emphasis added). Through consideration of his medical records the PEB board determined his corrected vision in the left eye was 10/200 (which converts to 20/400 visual acuity) and only has light perception in the left eye. Thereby, a condition that would not improve, with reasonable certainty, causing him to be permanently retired from the Army by reason of a disability. 7. Notwithstanding the denials by the Army TSGLI Program Officer at HRC, based on the aforementioned, and as a matter of equity and fairness, considering the applicant's medical documentation, and the ambiguity of the TSGLI's office rationale, a favorable determination should be given to a wounded Soldier in which an IED blast caused additional damage and/or additional loss of visual acuity in his left eye. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150005749 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150005749 13 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2