IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 27 September 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150006955 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____x___ ___x____ ___x_____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 27 September 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150006955 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. _____________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. IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 27 September 2016 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150006955 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 that he be medically retired. 2. The applicant states: * he has had problems with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) for years and his command recommended evaluation under the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) * he was granted 100 percent service-connected disability for PTSD on 24 September 2013 and was honorably discharged from the Illinois Army National Guard (ILARNG) on 1 October 2013 * his appeal was denied by the ILARNG G-1 * he was a dual-status Federal technician with the ILARNG; he lost his job and has not been able to find employment since his discharge 3. The applicant provides: * National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) * VA rating decision and progress notes * DA Form 7652 (PDES Commander's Performance and Functional Statement) * Retired Reserve orders * Notification of Eligibility for Retired Pay at Age 60 (20-Year Letter) CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant was born in August 1971. Having had prior service in the Regular Army and ARNG, the applicant enlisted in the ILARNG on 15 September 2001 and held military occupational specialties 11B (Infantryman) and 12B (Combat Engineer). He attained the rank/grade of master sergeant (MSG)/E-8 in November 2009. 2. On 8 November 2011, the ILARNG issued him a Notification of Eligibility for Retired Pay at Age 60 (20-Year Letter). 4. On 25 May 2012, the ILARNG notified him that he was considered by the 2012 Qualitative Retention Board (QRB) and recommended for retention in the ARNG. The QRB also recommended he be considered again in 2013. 5. On 2 July 2013, the ILARNG notified him that he was considered by the 2013 QRB but was not selected for retention. He was advised of his right to appeal and was informed that if his appeal was denied he would be discharged from the ILARNG no later than 1 October 2013 and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group in accordance with his election. 6. A review of the applicant’s Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reports (NCOER) show he served as a brigade operations NCO and he received essentially maximum ratings on his evaluations (“Success” or higher ratings). His last report ended on 31 August 2013. A review of his evaluation reports failed to show any indication that he was unable to perform any of his assigned duties. Additionally: * there is no record of a diagnosis of any behavioral health condition that a medical authority determined did not meet retention standards * there is no indication to show that a determination was made by military medical personnel that the applicant had an unfitting condition prior to his discharge * there is no record of a permanent physical profile 7. Effective 1 October 2013, the applicant was honorably discharged from the ILARNG in accordance with National Guard Regulation (NGR) 635-100 (Selective or Qualitative Retention Action) due to his non-selection by a QRB. He was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Retired Reserve). 8. His NGB Form 22 shows he completed 24 years, 4 months, and 15 days of total service for pay and 22 years and 17 days of service for retired pay. 9. He provides: a. DA Form 7652, dated 5 July 2013. His commander stated the applicant's performance had been decreasing over the last year. His performance during annual training was sub-par. His worsening attitude detrimentally affected unit morale and cohesion. His performance was affected by his ankle and knee injury and chronic pain. His medical condition affected his performance. He was not recommended for retention. b. VA rating decision, dated 24 September 2013, that shows the VA awarded him service-connected disability compensation for PTSD at the rate of 100 percent effective 8 August 2011, in addition to Lyme disease rated at zero percent, sinusitis rated at zero percent, and residuals of a head injury with scar rated at zero percent. His VA records also indicate he adjustment problems following his return from Panama in 1991. 10. The Board forwarded his case to the Office of The Surgeon General (OTSG) for review. As a result, OTSG rendered an advisory opinion on 29 July 2016. The OTSG official stated: a. The applicant received an honorable discharge on 1 October 2013 in accordance with NGR 635-100. In April 2015, he requested the Board change his narrative reason for separation to medical based on PTSD. OTSG was asked to provide an advisory opinion regarding documentation provided by the applicant to determine if the information/diagnosis contained in his documentation were duly considered during his separation processing. This opinion is based solely on the information provided by the Board as there are no entries in the DOD electronic medical records (AHLTA). b. A PDES Commander's Performance and Functional Statement completed on 5 July 2013 concluded that the applicant was unable to perform common military tasks, specifically citing "ankle and knee injury and subsequent chronic pain." c. On 24 September 2013, the VA granted him service-connection for PTSD with a disability rating of 100 percent effective 8 August 2011. However, there is no documentation that at the time of his separation he met the criteria for PTSD or failed to meet retention standards. 11. The applicant was provided with a copy of this advisory opinion to allow him an opportunity to submit additional comments and/or a rebuttal. He did not respond. REFERENCES: 1. AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) states disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to Soldiers whose service is interrupted and who can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service. This regulation also provides, in pertinent part, that when a Soldier is being processed for separation or retirement for reasons other than physical disability, continued performance of assigned duty commensurate with his or her rank or grade until the Soldier is scheduled for separation or retirement creates a presumption that the Soldier is fit. 2. AR 635-40 also provides that the medical treatment facility commander will provide a thorough and prompt evaluation when a Soldier's medical condition becomes questionable in respect to physical ability to perform duty. 3. Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service. The VA, however, does not determine medical unfitness for further military service. The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned. Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting 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. 4. There is a difference between the VA and the Army disability systems. The Army’s determination of a Soldier’s physical fitness or unfitness is a factual finding based upon the individual’s ability to perform the duties of his or her 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 a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) hearing. The VA may find a Soldier unfit by reason of service-connected disability and may even initially assign a higher rating. The VA’s ratings are based upon an individual’s ability to gain employment as a civilian and may fluctuate within a period of time depending on changes in the disability. 5. NGR 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), paragraph 8-26 provides that commanders who suspect that a Soldier may not be medically qualified for retention will direct the Soldier to report for a complete medical examination. Commanders who do not recommend retention will request the Soldier’s discharge. DISCUSSION: 1. The available evidence shows the applicant was considered by a QRB but not selected for retention. He was advised of his right to appeal and the options available to him. He was properly discharged from the ILARNG due to non-retention by a QRB in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations with no indication of any violations of any of his rights. 2. While he was rated as 100 percent service-connected for PTSD prior to his discharge, his evaluations show no indication that he was unable to perform any of his duties prior to his discharge due to PTSD, that he did not meet medical retention standards, or that he had a condition warranting referral to the PDES. 3. Although he may have experienced adjustment problems following his return from Panama in 1991, the fact that he reentered military service in 2001, served in a variety of assignments, extended or reenlisted, and was promoted to MSG/E-8 indicates he was fully qualified for retention. 4. His performance - according to his commander - appears to have been a reason for his non-selection for retention. According to his commander, his performance had been decreasing and sub-par and his worsening attitude detrimentally affected unit morale and cohesion. While the commander acknowledged that the performance may have been affected by his ankle and knee injury and chronic pain, this did not translate to any medical condition having failed retention standards. 5. The fact that the VA, in its discretion, has awarded him a disability rating is a prerogative exercised within the policies of that agency. It does not, in itself, establish any entitlement to additional disability compensation or medical retirement from the Army. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150006955 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150006955 5 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2