ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 23 May 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170003975 APPLICANT REQUESTS: A change of his medical evaluation board (MEB)/physical evaluation board (PEB) diagnosis from Esotropia to Diplopia. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * seven Standard Forms (SF) 500 (Health Record – Chronological Record of Medical Care) FACTS: 1. The applicant states the person who examined his eyes in the beginning of the MEB process, gave him the Esotropia diagnosis because he had double vision since December 2013 and weeks later. During the final step of his MEB, Doctor X____ told him during his appointment with Doctor X____ that he had Diplopia and he had to change that mistake in his MEB process, but it was already too late. His double vision was only with far objects, but he currently has problems even when he looks at his hands. The prism in the glasses helped him, but at the same time they have worsened his eyes because now he cannot do anything without the prism. He is going to need too much therapy and he needs this mistake to be corrected. 2. Review of the applicant’s record shows: a. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 October 2013 and he held military occupational specialty 92F (Petroleum Supply Specialist). He served in Korea from 15 June 2014 to 16 June 2015. b. The applicant provided two SF’s showing on/for: * 4 November 2013 – he underwent a medical examination for Astigmatism * 11 October 2016 – he had an appointment in the Optometry Clinic c. On 13 October 2016, an MEB convened and found his condition of Unspecified Depressive Disorder did not meet medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness). The MEB found the condition of Esotropia (moderate) met medical retention standards. He was referred to a PEB. d. He also provided two SF’s showing on 3 and 9 November 2016, he had appointments in the Optometry Clinic. e. On 22 November 2016, an informal PEB convened and found him physically unfit for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and recommended his permanent disability separation with a rating of 50 percent. The PEB found him fit for the MEB condition of Esotropia. He concurred with the findings and recommendations of the PEB and waived his right to a formal hearing. f. He further provided three SF’s showing on/for: * 7 and 16 December 2016 – he had appointments in the Optometry Clinic * 29 December 2016 – he had an appointment in the Ophthalmology Clinic for problems with Diplopia and Astigmatism g. He was honorably retired on 21 March 2017, under the provisions of AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), chapter 4, by reason of Permanent Disability (Enhanced). His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he completed 3 years, 4 months, and 23 days of active service. 3. An advisory opinion was received from the Senior Medical Advisor, Army Review Boards Agency, on 8 February 2019, in the processing of this case. The medical advisor reiterated the applicant’s period of military service and stated a. The applicant’s medical conditions were duly considered during medical separation processing. A review of the available documentation found no evidence of a medical disability or condition that would support a change to the character, reason, rated condition(s), disability determination(s), disability rating(s), and/or combat relatedness (none) for the discharge in this case. There was no indication or medical reason to change the MEB/PEB and/or VA diagnosis of Esotropia. b. After comprehensive review of the medical and other records, he concluded that there was no cause to recommend a change in the PEB fitness determination for contended or any other conditions and so no change to the diagnosis and/or additional disability rating(s) recommended. The Army had neither the role nor the authority to compensate for progression or complications of service-connected conditions after separation. 4. The applicant was provided with a copy of this advisory opinion for acknowledgement and/or rebuttal. He did not respond. 5. By regulation (AR 635-40), a Soldier may be discharged from the Army for not meeting retention standards in accordance with AR 40-501 and awarded a disability rating assigned by the Army’s disability system. 6. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition and his service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board determined that relief was not warranted. Based upon the medical advisory’s finding that it found no evidence of a medical disability or condition that would support a change to the character, reason, rated condition(s), disability determination(s), the Board concluded that there was insufficient evidence to show an error or injustice present which would warrant changing the applicant’s record. 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. 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. Army Regulation (AR) 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that governs the evaluation for physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. a. Chapter 3 – 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/her office, rank, grade or rating. b. Chapter 4 – the guidance on referring Soldiers for evaluation by a medical evaluation board (MEB) when a question arose as to the Soldier’s ability to perform the duties of his/her office because of physical disability. 2. AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) provides medical retention standards and is used by MEBs to determine which medical conditions will be referred to a physical evaluation board. Chapter 3 identified various medical conditions and provided the standards by which a determination will be made as to passing or failing retention standards. 3. Title 10, U.S. Code (USC), chapter 61 states Soldiers, not otherwise eligible for military retirement, with a disability not the result of intentional misconduct or willful neglect, and with less than a 30 percent disability rating, will receive severance pay. 4. Title 38, USC, sections 1110 and 1131, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service. The VA, however, is not required by law to 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170003975 4 1