BOARD DATE: 21 November 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000739 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 BOARD DATE: 21 November 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000739 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. BOARD DATE: 21 November 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160000739 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 her medical evaluation board (MEB) be reevaluated and these specified corrections to her DA Form 3947 (MEB Proceedings): * block 3 (Social Security Number ) * block 9 (Total Years of Service) * block 10 (Date Entered Current Tour of Active Duty) * block 13 (Diagnosis) reevaluation of anxiety disorder * block 13b (Approximate Date of Origin) 2. The applicant states her DA Form 3947 did not include her military service years or basic active service date (BASD) and it listed her former spouse's SSN. a. There is contradicting information within her DA Form 3947 compared to her medical narrative summary (NARSUM) and her entry medical physical, dated 14 October 1999. The two conditions, bilateral pes planus and mechanical low back pain, show they existed prior to service (ETPS) on her DA Form 3947. However, there is no evidence these two conditions EPTS. There are no annotations on her entrance physical showing these two conditions EPTS. b. The MEB determined she met retention standards for anxiety disorder; she requests reconsideration of this condition with referral to a physical evaluation board (PEB). c. Supporting documentation was never requested by the physical evaluation board liaison officer (PEBLO) to substantiate her medical conditions. Her MEB was mishandled and processed in a manner which did not allow the PEB the opportunity to render a plausible decision. She states, "The board was loosely based upon documentation in the newly implemented Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA). Though now considered a flagship system to document conditions, the system was only operational for two (2) years at the time of my MEB." She further states, "I experienced pitfalls and shortcomings due to the lack of documentation within the system my medical board was based on." She was instructed to concur with the findings because no revision to the DA Form 199 (PEB Proceedings) was allowed. She claims she was never afforded an opportunity to consult with legal services during her disability evaluation processing. d. During her deployment in support of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, she sought behavioral health treatment. However, her medical records supporting this treatment were lost in transit back to Georgia. e. She is currently being treated by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for the following service-connected disabilities: * pes planus, rated 10 percent * post-traumatic brain injury with headaches, claim pending * post-traumatic stress disorder with major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder, rated 70 percent 3. The applicant provides: * medical records * MEB narrative summaries * MEB proceedings * PEB proceedings * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) ratings 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. With prior service in the Army National Guard, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 January 2000. Upon her release from active duty on 5 January 2004, she was issued a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) showing she served 4 years on active duty and was transferred to a medical unit in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR). Her DD Form 214 confirms she deployed in support of Operations Desert Spring and Iraqi Freedom from 7 January to 19 July 2003. Her SSN is shown as XXX-XX-XXXX and her military occupational specialty (MOS) was 91G (Behavioral Science Specialist). 3. On 29 July 2004, Headquarters, 81st Regional Readiness Command, USAR informed the applicant's chain of command by memorandum she did not meet medical retention standards for anxiety disorder, back pain, and knee pain. This was determined during an administrative review of her medical records. The memorandum stated she was pending separation for nonduty related physical impairments and could request a PEB solely for the purpose of a fitness determination. It also stated, "Soldiers are not eligible for disability benefits for nonduty related impairments." 4. On 8 January 2005, by memorandum the applicant's commander stated she had been counseled on the disability evaluation system (DES) (for Reserve Component members). The commander stated directly, "Her medical condition has had no negative impact on her performance of duties." She signed a separate memorandum requesting an informal PEB. 5. Her MEB NARSUM (psychiatry) was based upon a physical examination conducted on 23 November 2005. She was referred for an MEB by a physician and her status was Reservist. The physician stated the applicant "is employed as a civilian at the Winn Army Community Hospital." Her chief complaint was "I haven't recovered from Iraq." a. She deployed in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) from December 2002 until August 2003. She states her traumatic event occurred during convoy operations from Dagwood to Baghdad. The convoy was hit by a large mortar round. It killed another Soldier whom she knew. This incident continues to disturb her. At the time she recalls feeling "like her soul was taken from her." She was scared thinking, "What the hell is going on?" She was instructed to help gather the remains of the deceased Soldier and they could not find all her remains. b. She returned to Dagwood because she was too scared to go out of the perimeter. In Dagwood she performed guard duty. She did receive nonjudicial punishment (NJP), an Article 15 under the provisions of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), because she got into an altercation. She became upset when another Soldier said something unkind about the convoy incident. Her unit leadership did not think she was stable enough and took her weapon for 1 week. c. In Dagwood she did see a Mental Health Provider, however, it was "off line." She said it was not documented because the Mental Health Provider told her it would hurt her (career) in the future. She met with the provider for approximately 2 months. When she returned from deployment she did not seek mental health services because she just wanted to get out of the military. d. She went to a veterans center in Savannah, Georgia for four sessions. She states she received a permanent profile of P3 for her mental health condition. e. She was emotionally traumatized by her experiences to the point it affects her relationship with her husband and children. She admits to physically assaulting her husband. f. She was cooperative during the interview. She became mildly anxious when discussing the incident in Iraq. She had good eye contact. She had no formal thought disorder. Her mood was mildly anxious. Her affect was full. g. She states she has not been the same since she deployed and was only seen (behavioral health) while deployed and for a few sessions by the veterans center. She now reports significant problems at work. She is assigned to work in admissions at the hospital (presumably as a civilian). The only problem she has found while working is she does not want to go to the morgue. h. The physician stated she does meet retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3. Her diagnosis was anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified. Her Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) Scale from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)-IV was 90 (absent or minimal systems (e.g., mild anxiety), good functioning in all areas, interested and involved in a wide range of activities, socially effective, generally satisfied with life, no more than everyday problems or concerns). 6. Her second MEB NARSUM (physical) is based on a physical examination performed on 21 December 2005. Again, she was referred by a physician and her chief complaint was bilateral knee pain, bilateral foot pain and low back pain. The physician concluded she failed to meet retention standards as per AR 40-501, chapter 3, paragraph 3-13b(2) (Pes planus), paragraph 3-13b(5) (Plantar fasciitis), paragraph 3-39h (Spine – herniation of nucleus pulposus) and paragraph 3-41e(1)(2) (Miscellaneous conditions and defects). a. She stated her knee pain began insidiously while running in February 2000 during advanced individual training (AIT). She described the pain as stinging in the front part of her knee. She experiences pain when she bends her knee and the pains are present about 75 percent of her day and it also occurs at night. She is unable to do stooping activities. She takes Naprosyn, Motrin or Bayer aspirin for treatment of her knee pain and other orthopedic maladies. b. She stated her foot pain began while running in the year 2001. She had pain on the inside part of her foot and her heels. The pain occurs in the morning and reports wearing orthotics which improved the foot pain, but caused some medial sided numbness in her feet. c. She stated her lower back pain began insidiously in about the year 2000. She did not report a traumatic incident involving her back. Her pain is in the low back area, and occasionally moves to the right side and occasionally moves to the posterior aspect of her right thigh to its midpoint. She experiences pain while walking, running, and while doing aerobics. Her treatment includes physical therapy and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medicine. d. Radiographic studies included plain films of both feet done on 23 November 2005, showing minimal degenerative changes at the head of the first metatarsal bilaterally, but otherwise negative studies. Plain films of both knees were obtained on the same date, no abnormalities or effusions are described. The sunrise view showed bilateral tilting of the patellae. Plain films of the lumbosacral spine were obtained. These films show sclerosis at the articulating facet of L4 and L5 and S1. Mild scoliosis is noted, but is thought to be related to muscle spasm. e. Physical examination of her knees shows the alignment of the lower extremities was neutral. There is bilateral pes planus (lowering of the longitudinal arch of the feet or flatfoot). Range of motion of the left knee is -10 to 95 degrees of flexion actively and from -10 to 100 degrees of flexion passively. Range of motion of the right knee was from -10 to 80 degrees actively and from -10 to 105 degrees passively. The "Q angle" measured on the left was 20 degrees and on the right was 18 degrees. Both knees were painful with patellofemoral compression. Both knees were tender at the anterior medial joint line. Both knees were stable on the "AP and collateral dimension." Physical examination of the feet shows, as stated above, bilateral pes planues (flatfeet). The dorsalis pedis pulses were palpable at both feet. There was pain with palpation of the plantar medial calcaneus at both feet. f. All ranges of motion of her lumbar spine were limited by pain. The lumbar sacral spine shows she can toe walk and heel walk. Her reflexes were symmetrically hypoactive at the knee and "symmetric at 2+ at the ankle." There were no weaknesses noted at her ankle dorsiflexion, ankle eversion, and knee flexion or knee extension. g. Her MOS 91G is administrative. She stated she cannot perform some functions of her MOS such as lifting, standing, stooping and prolonged sitting aggravates her low back pain. She stated she also cannot run, ruck-march (carrying a basic load), construct a fighting position or do (running) rushes. h. The applicant’s diagnoses were: * patellofemoral arthrosis of both knees: ETPS, no; line of duty, yes; aggravated by service, not applicable (NA) * bilateral pes planus (flatfoot) and result with pain: EPTS, yes; line of duty, no; aggravated by service, yes * bilateral plantar fasciitis: ETPS, no; line of duty, yes; aggravated by service, NA * mechanical low back pain: ETPS, no; line of duty, yes; aggravated by service, NA 7. On 6 February 2006, an MEB convened and found the applicant had the following diagnoses: * patellofemoral arthrosis of both knees: approximate date of origin 2000; incurred while entitled to base pay, yes; ETPS, no; aggravated by service, no entry * bilateral pes planus (flatfoot) and result with pain: approximate date of origin, EPTS; incurred while entitled to base pay, no; ETPS, yes; aggravated by service, yes * bilateral plantar fasciitis: approximate date of origin, 2001; incurred while entitled to base pay, yes; ETPS, no; aggravated by service, not entry * mechanical low back pain: approximate date of origin, ETPS, incurred while entitled to base pay, no; ETPS, yes; aggravated by service, no entry * anxiety disorder, met retention standards: date of origin 2003, incurred while entitled to base pay, yes; EPTS, no The MEB recommended referral to an informal PEB and the findings and recommendations were approved. The DA Form 3947 also shows: * block 3, XXX-XX-5532 * block 9, blank * block 10, blank 8. On 21 February 2006, the applicant concurred with the MEB findings and recommendation. She did not appeal. 9. On 2 March 2006, an informal PEB convened. Based on a review of the objective medical and personnel evidence of record and considering the physical requirements for reasonable performance of duties required by her grade and military specialty, the informal PEB found the applicant fit for duty within the limitations of her profile. As a result, she was returned to duty. Block 4 (SSN) of her DA Form 199 shows the entry XXX-XX-XXXX. 10. On 8 March 2006, after being counseled on her rights and options, she acknowledged she had been advised of the findings and recommendations of the informal PEB, and had received a full explanation of the results of the findings and recommendations, and legal rights pertaining thereto. She waived her right to a formal hearing and concurred with the PEB findings and recommendation. The PEBLO authenticated she had informed the applicant of the findings and recommendation of the informal PEB and explained to her the results, and her legal rights pertaining thereto. 11. On 14 March 2006 the U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) reviewed and approved the informal PEB proceedings. 12. The applicant provided a copy of her VA Rating Decision, dated 29 April 2014, showing she has service-connected PTSD with major depressive disorder rated at 70 percent effective 6 June 2013 and bacterial vaginosis rated at 30 percent. 13. In the processing of this case the USAPDA provided an advisory opinion. The USAPDA medical advisor stated: a. This case was decided in 2006. The PEB determined she was fit because the three conditions failing retention standards were long standing and in the absence of recent change, the PEB determined the conditions, as such, did not interfere with satisfactory duty performance. The three conditions were: patellofemoral arthrosis of both knees, bilateral pes planus with pain bilateral plantar fasciitis. b. The MEB identified her bilateral pes planus as a congenital condition, apparently because bilateral pes planus, in the absence of injury, is most often congenital. Regardless, whether the condition was congenital (EPTS) or not, the PEB's finding that this condition did not interfere with her duty performance was not directly related to the MEB assessment as the condition was EPTS. c. As a performance based system, at the time the PEB adjudicated her case the PEB would have considered the following salient features of her primary MOS. For MOS 91G the minimum physical profile is PUHLES of 323221 (i.e., allowing a "3" for "lower extremities" to include back, knees and feet). d. With respect to the applicant's behavioral health condition, a medical physician determined she met medical retention standards. To meet retention standards for an anxiety disorder, the MEB must find the provisions of AR 40-501, paragraph 3-33 are not met. AR 40-501, paragraph 3-33, provides the causes for an MEB referral for an anxiety disorder is persistent or recurrence of symptoms sufficient to require extended or recurrent hospitalization, limitations of duty or duty in a protected environment, or resulting in interference with effective duty performance. e. Based on the MEB's findings she met physical fitness standards (no record of psychiatric hospitalization), thus the PEB's findings appear adequately supported. 14. The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion in order to allow for a response or rebuttal. She responded. a. During the 2005/2006 MEB Legacy Process at Fort Stewart, GA, she felt the PEBLO assigned to her case was unprofessional. As she was found fit for duty, she was told to sign her DA Form 199. A rebuttal to the PEB only applied if the rating amount was dissatisfactory and she didn't fit in that category. She argues the new Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) instructions say a Soldier is sent to the legal division whether he/she wants to file a rebuttal or not. She believes this new safeguard is to protect Soldiers from past situations like hers. b. She failed retention standards because her primary care provider identified her inability to perform the duties prescribed by her PMOS. Upon evaluation of her diagnostics and medical records, she was rendered as failing retention standards of AR 40-501. She asserts she entered active duty in optimal health. During AIT the exercise regime was rigorous and she began to hurt. c. She disagrees with the physical fitness standards for her MOS for she believes it does not incorporate the physical demands of being both a field Soldier and a garrison Soldier. She cites these factors as contributing to her medical condition: physical fitness training, lifting and moving heavy objects, standing for hours on guard duty, deployments, and carrying litters with injured patients, and experiencing back-blast from improvised explosive devices, etc. d. During her deployment, she experienced witnessing a battle buddy commit suicide. She was directed to collect the remains and clean-up the area. She was never approached or comforted in any way. She assumed because such actions were considered "spoils of war." She couldn't sleep for days at a time and every gunshot from that day on is a trigger for her. She refuses to own a gun today. 15. The applicant provides in support of her case, copies of: a. Report of medical examination and medical history for enlistment in the Army National Guard (ARNG) highlighting her medical conditions during her initial entry, and shows that all were acceptable at that time and she was in good health. b. NARSUM, dated 21 December 2005, highlights: * patient medical history – non-contributory * sclerosis at the articulation facet of L4, L5, and S1 * mild scoliosis related to muscle spasm * bilateral pes planus * painful and tender knees * pain with palpation of the plantar medial calcaneus at both feet * all ranges of motion of the lumbar spine are limited by pain * diagnoses – bilateral pes planus and mechanical low back pain c. Non-Duty Related (NDR) Case Submission to Physical Evaluation Board (PEB): Clarification of Procedures and Required Information memorandum, dated 20 June 2013, describes NDR case elements that must be included in PEB submissions, which included a sample memorandum. REFERENCES: 1. 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. 2. Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 1332.18 (Separation or Retirement for Physical Disability), dated 4 November 1996 and certified current as of 1 December 2003, implemented policies and procedures for separating or retiring service members based on the evaluation of physical disabilities using the Disability Evaluation System (DES) in accordance with Chapter 61, Title 10. 3. DODI Number 1332.38 (DES), dated 14 November 1996 incorporating change 1 effective 10 July 2006, implemented policy, assigned responsibilities, and prescribed procedures for retiring or separating Service members because of physical disability. a. Paragraph 4.2 (Policy) stated members of the Reserve Component, who are not on a call to active duty for more than 30 days and who are medically disqualified for impairments unrelated to the member's military status and performance of duty, shall be referred into the DES solely for a fitness determination. b. Paragraph E3.P1.3.3.1.2. (Eligibility) stated active duty and Reserve Component members' determined fit do not have an entitlement to a formal PEB since a finding of fit does not cause involuntary separation for physical disability. c. Paragraph E3.P1.3.3.5.2 (Hearing Rights) stated Service members have the right to the assistance of a detailed military counsel provided at no expense to the member or a personal representative provided at no expense to the Service. This right extends to Reserve Component members who request a formal hearing pending separation for medical disqualification. d. Paragraph E3.P1.3.3.5.9 stated a Service member has the right to appeal the findings and recommendation of the formal PEB. e. Paragraph E3.P1.3.4.2 (Nonduty-Related Conditions) stated for members of the Ready Reserve referred for nonduty-related conditions, the record of proceeding shall document only the fitness determination. f. Paragraph E3.P1.4.1 (Counseling – Purpose) stated the counseling element of DES shall afford Service members undergoing evaluation by the DES the opportunity to be advised of the significance and consequences of the determinations made and the associated rights, benefits, and entitlements. g. Paragraph E3.P1.4.3. (Ready Reserve Members) stated Reserve Component members pending separation for physical disability shall be counseled by the PLEBO concerning their rights under the DES. 4. DODI Number 1332.18 (DES) was reissued on 5 August 2014. This instruction canceled DODI Number 1332.38. It is DoD policy that Service member will proceed through one of three DES processes: the Legacy DES, the IDES, or the Expedited DES. Reserve Component Service members who are not on a call to active duty of more than 30 days and who are pending separation for non-duty related medical conditions may enter the DES for a determination of a fitness and whether the condition is duty related. 5. AR 40-400 (Medical Services – Patient Administration), effective 12 March 2001, implemented in chapter 7 (Military Personnel Physical Disability Processing) the policies and procedures for processing military personnel within the DES. a. It stated MEBs operated informally and could assemble to discuss and evaluate a patient's case. Clinical, health, and other records, as appropriate, were reviewed. MEBs that were referring a case to a PEB were required to take special care in recording MEB proceedings to ensure clarity and completeness. The description of the Soldier's condition was to accurately state the limitations imposed by the impairments listed. If applicable, the entry should also include a discussion of the combined effect of all impairments. b. Upon completion of the MEB, and after approval of the proceedings, the Soldier was to be counseled as to the results. If the Soldier disagreed with the findings of the MEB, they had 3 working days to prepare a written appeal. If there were no objections, the MEB results were forwarded to the PEB. 6. AR 40-501 provides medical retention standards and is used by MEBs to determine which medical conditions will be referred to a PEB. Paragraph 3-3 states Soldiers whose medical conditions fail retention standards are to be referred to a PEB as defined in AR 635-40. The PEB will make the determination of fitness or unfitness. 7. AR 635-40, in effect at the time, established the Army PDES and set forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures governing the evaluation for physical fitness of Soldiers who might be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. a. Chapter 3 stated the mere presence of impairment did not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability. In each case, it was necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the member reasonably could be expected to perform because of his or her office, rank, grade or rating. b. Chapter 4 addressed procedures for the PEB process, and included guidance on referring Soldiers for evaluation by an MEB, when a question arose as to the Soldier's ability to perform the duties of his or her office due to a physical disability. c. Chapter 8 provided the rules for processing Reserve Component Soldiers through the DES who are on active duty for a period of less than 30 days or on inactive duty training. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1204, 1205, and 1206 establish the criteria for entitlement to disability benefits for Reserve Component Soldiers performing duty for 30 days or less. Soldiers who incur a disability from an injury determined to be the proximate cause while performing annual training, active duty special work, ADT with or without pay, or a temporary tour of active duty based on provisions of application sections of chapter 10 (Armed Forces), U.S. Code. There must be a determination by the PEB that the unfitting condition was the proximate resulting of performing duty based on their duty status and a line of duty determination. DISCUSSION: 1. Upon her honorable release from active duty, the applicant was assigned to the USAR. The applicant's medical records were administratively reviewed and it was determined she should undergo a fitness for duty determination. As she was a drilling Reservist not on active duty, her DES process was conducted according to the instructions, policies and regulations concerning Reserve Component Service members. 2. As required by regulation two separate medical examinations were conducted, a physical and a psychiatric examination, and in turn two NARSUMs were prepared. The MEB listed five medical conditions: patellofemoral arthrosis of both knees, bilateral pes planus, bilateral plantar fasciitis, mechanical low back pain and anxiety disorder. a. The MEB's role, by regulation, is to identify all medical conditions that may interfere with the Soldier's ability to perform their military duties. Once the MEB determines all conditions that fail to meet medical retention standards, those conditions, and only those conditions, are referred to the PEB for a fitness determination. b. She argues data is missing from her DA Form 3947. As she was not on active duty, there appears to be no requirement to enter her former active duty data as she specified on her application. However, it is administratively noted her DA Form 3947 SSN does not match the SSN contained on her DD Form 214 and her DA Form 199. c. The advisory opinion stated bilateral pes planus (flatfeet) was probably congenital. Her mechanical low back pain was attributed to scoliosis, again a congenital condition. Thus, these two conditions were determined to EPTS. As they were ETPS, no date of approximate origin was assigned as neither condition occurred due to her military service. Her argument that these two conditions were not noted on her Army National Guard entrance physical is moot. The MEB did note these two conditions were aggravated by her service. d. There is no record of hospitalizations for her anxiety disorder and no evidence her duties were limited for an extensive period of time. It appears her chain of command limited her duty performance to Dagwood during OIF due to her combat experiences with exposure to an IED and the death of a Soldier while conducting convoy operations. There is no permanent profile in her medical record restricting her use of military weapons. 3. By regulation, the PEB addresses only those medical conditions the MEB has determined as not meeting medical retention standards. As such, the applicant's informal PEB focused exclusively on her medical conditions listed on the DA Form 3947. For Reserve Component members not on active duty, an informal PEB will only make a determination for fitness for duty or unfitness for duty. She was found to be fit for duty. 4. As a member of the Reserve Component not on active duty, there is no policy or regulatory requirement for a formal PEB. She argues she was made to sign the forms by her assigned PEBLO because she was found fit for duty. By regulation, the PEBLO was properly performing her duties. As there was no requirement for a formal PEB, by regulation there was no requirement for her to have a counselor (legal officer) assigned to represent her during her proceedings. 5. The VA, operating under its applicable laws and its own regulations, determines what conditions are considered service-connected and assigns a disability rating and can adjust their percentage ratings over the life of the veteran. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160000739 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160000739 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2