ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: January 14, 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160016300 APPLICANT REQUESTS: an increase of his Army disability rating from 0 percent (%) to his current rating of 50% by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical board. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * DA Form 3947 (Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Proceedings) * DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings) * VA Rating Decision FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code (USC), section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states he only recently learned he could request an update of his DOD record to match the VA rating. 3. The applicant provided his: * MEB Proceedings, dated 30 March 2000 * PEB Proceedings, dated 13 April 2000 * VA Rating Decision, dated 19 April 2014, showing he was awarded a service- connected combined rating of 50% for: * Bilateral Plantar Fasciitis – 30% * Patellofemoral Pain Disorder, Right Knee – 10% * Patellofemoral Pain Disorder, Left Knee – 10% * Left Wrist Strain – 10% * he was not awarded a service-connected rating for: * Low Back Pain and Right Hip Conditions associated with Bilateral Plantar Fasciitis * Low Back Disorders * Right Wrist Condition * Diabetes Mellitus * Bipolar Disorder 4. Review of the applicant’s service records show: a. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 January 1997. He held military occupational specialty 63B (Light Wheel Vehicle Mechanic). He served in Korea from 31 January 1997 to 29 January 1998. b. An MEB convened on 30 March 2000 and considered his medical conditions of Bilateral Plantar Fasciitis, Bilateral retropatellar pain syndrome, and posttraumatic left wrist pain. He was referred to a PEB. c. A PEB convened on 13 April 2000 and determined he was physically unfit for Bilateral foot pain secondary plantar fasciitis. The other two medical conditions were not found to be unfitting. The PEB recommended a combined disability rating of 0% with his disposition as separation with severance pay, if otherwise qualified. He concurred with the PEB findings and recommendations and waived his right to a formal hearing. d. Orders Number 160-001, issued by Headquarters, I Corps and Fort Lewis on 8 June 2000, announced his transition for discharge. e. He was honorably discharged from active duty on 15 July 2000, by reason of disability. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he completed 3 years, 5 months, and 25 days of active service and he received disability severance pay. f. An advisory opinion was received from the Medical Advisor, Army Review Boards Agency, on 4 December 2019, in the processing of this case. The medical advisor reviewed the record for alleged medical condition(s) that may have warranted separation through medical channels or medical condition(s) not considered during medical separation processing. The medical advisor reiterated the applicant’s period of service and stated: (1) Review of the available records and the note summarizing the work up completed for the Bilateral foot condition (bone scans, films, multi-modality treatments) support that this condition was duly considered during discharge processing. The MEB placement of the condition on DA Form 3947, and review of VA visits most proximate to the time of discharge supported more likely than not that the bilateral knee and left wrist conditions were duly considered during medical separation processing. (2) The records available for review for the ankle and hip were not sufficient to determine if they were duly considered during medical separation processing. It should also be noted it was unknown if an ankle and hip condition existed at or near the time of discharge since the findings (November 2000 films) available for review were normal. Therefore after review of the applicant's available record, a referral to Army Disability Evaluation System for consideration of an increase in rating percentage(s) and/or for consideration of medical retirement was not indicated at this time. g. The applicant was provided with a copy of this advisory opinion for acknowledgement and/or rebuttal. The applicant did not respond. 5. By regulation, a Soldier may be discharged from the Army for not meeting retention standards in accordance with chapter 3 of AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) and awarded a disability rating assigned by the Army’s disability system. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found relief was not warranted. Based upon the findings and recommendations of the medical advisory and the failure of the applicant to provide any rebuttal to those findings, the Board recommended denying the applicant’s requested relief. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : 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 the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. X 2/12/2020 CHAIRPERSON Signed by: 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, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation (AR) 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), in effect at the time, governed medical fitness standards for enlistment, induction, appointment, retention, and separation (including retirement). Once a determination of physical unfitness is made, the Physical Evaluation Board would rate all disabilities using the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). Ratings can range from 0% to 100%, rising in increments of 10%. 3. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), in effect at the time, prescribed policy and implements the requirements of chapter 61 (Retirement or Separation for Physical Disability) of Title 10, U.S. Code (USC). The regulation stated: a. The mere presence of a medical impairment did not in and of itself justify a finding of unfitness. In each case, it was necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier may reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. A Soldier was physically unfit when a medical impairment prevents reasonable performance of the duties required of the Soldier's office, grade, rank, or rating. b. The VASRD was primarily used as a guide for evaluating disabilities resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of, or incident to, military service. Because of differences between Army and VA applications of rating policies, differences in ratings could result. Unlike the VA, the Army must first determine whether or not a Soldier was fit to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating. Once a Soldier was determined to be physically unfit for further military service, percentage ratings were applied to the unfitting conditions from the VASRD. Those percentages were applied based on the severity of the condition at the time of separation. NOTHING FOLLOWS