IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 September 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190013308 APPLICANT REQUESTS: through Counsel, the addition of unrated medical conditions to his physical disability ratings APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Counsel’s letter * Power of Attorney * medical and service records in excess of 450 pages * multiple Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decisions and letters * State of New Jersey Traumatic Brain Injury Fund letter * Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) decision letter FACTS: 1. Counsel states: a. The applicant respectfully requests a review of and increase to his Army physical disability retirement rating. While they acknowledge that he was previously awarded a 70 percent disability rating for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and a 70 percent rating for traumatic brain injury (TBI), he and his representing Counsel feel the full extent of his functional loss was not properly considered in the evaluation of his disability. b. This is clearly evidenced by his recent Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) decision granting him a 100 percent CRSC rating of his disability due to functional loss resulting from the TBI he sustained while in combat. It is their assertion that his attached medical documentation, CRSC decision letter, and the State of New Jersey TBI Fund award letter clearly constitute sufficient documentation to support his claim for increased disability benefits. c. Title 38, U.S. Code, section 5107, states that while a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits administered by the Secretary, the Secretary shall consider all information and lay and medical evidence of record in a case before the Secretary with respect to benefits under laws administered by the Secretary. Where there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. The Court has held that a failure to apply the benefit of the doubt rule when reviewing an application for benefits administered by the Secretary of the VA, or to set forth clear reasons for not applying it, constitutes error. Additionally, when any agent, in reviewing an application of benefits administered by the Secretary of the VA can cite no evidence or facts by which to impeach or contradict a claim, there is no justifiable basis upon which to deny application of the doctrine. d. Given the substantial enclosed evidence supporting the applicant’s injuries and subsequent persistent disabilities, they assert the applicant is clearly entitled to an increased total disability rating of 100 percent. 2. The applicant states: a. The VA granted him the following ratings for conditions that were deemed combat-related incurred while on active duty: * TBI (VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) code 8045), 70 percent * left knee strain (VASRD code 5260), 10 percent * cervicogenic headaches (VASRD code 8100), 30 percent b. His previous Army physical disability evaluation only granted him a physical disability rating for PTSD and major depressive disorder. 3. The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Navy on 19 September 1996 and served until his general discharge due to misconduct after 1 year, 3 months and 9 days on 16 January 1998. 4. The applicant subsequently enlisted in the New Jersey Army National Guard (ARNG) on 29 August 2000. 5. On 7 September 2005, he was ordered to active duty in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom with service in Iraq beginning on 5 November 2005 through 27 October 2006. 6. A Standard Form 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care), dated 9 October 2006 shows the applicant was involved in an Improvised Explosive Device (IED) blast on the date of the form for which he was treated several hours later. He had a headache earlier, which left him and he was negative for ringing in the ears, hearing loss, vision changes, neck/back pain, or loss of consciousness. He had pain in his left leg, contusion, and tenderness to palpation over the posterior side of the patella ligament. 7. A DD Form 2796 (Post-Deployment Health Assessment), dated 30 October 2006, shows the applicant indicated his health stayed about the same or got better during this deployment. He was referred for an orthopedic appointment as needed for left knee pain and chest wall pain. 8. A DD Form 2697 (Report of Medical Assessment), likewise dated 30 October 2006 shows the applicant indicated the following: * compared to his last medical assessment his overall health was worse; it was sometimes hard to breathe and he got headaches almost everyday * after his vehicle was hit by an IED, he missed 2 weeks for chest pain, severe migraine headaches, and ringing ears * he was treated for swollen red eyes, lower back pain and still knees * he was taking Ibuprofen for his headaches * he was referred to optometry 9. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was honorably released from active duty on 25 November 2006 due to completion of required active service and returned to service with his ARNG unit. 10. The applicant provided numerous progress notes, consultation notes, and other medical documents pertaining to doctors’ visits which include the following: a. A Wilmington VA Medical Center progress note shows the applicant was seen for an initial visit on 18 December 2006 subsequent to IED explosion in Iraq on 9 October 2006. He had no apparent piercing injuries but stated he had a small black spot in his field of vision in the left eye since the occurrence. He complained of chronic low back and left knee pain from the trauma as well as sternal discomfort, frequent migraine headaches, difficulty sleeping and chronic tinnitus in the right ear. b. A Wilmington VAMC note shows a request for consultation on 18 January 2007 from Neurology to Physical Medicine for headaches of several months’ duration. c. A consultation with the Wilmington VAMC Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation on 8 February 2007 shows the applicant was seen for complaints of chronic headaches since an IED explosion on 9 October 2006. The impression was myofascial neck pain and cervicogenic headaches. The plan was to participate in outpatient physical therapy for cervical spine range of motion, stretching, strengthening exercises, postural education, moist heat, and home exercise program. d. A Wilmington VAMC Neurology note, dated 6 February 2008, shows the applicant was seen for a TBI second level screening. He was previously seen in Neurology for his headaches with wee less severe and do respond to Ibuprofen. There were no new symptoms. He was diagnosed with cervicogenic headaches. 11. The applicant provided a partial DA Form 3947 (Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Proceedings) which shows an MEB convened on 10 January 2010. a. The following conditions were considered to be medically unacceptable, to have been incurred on 9 October 2006, and were cause for referral to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB): * PTSD (claimed as PTSD and sleep disorder) * major depressive disorder b. The following conditions were considered to be medically acceptable: * posttraumatic lumbosacral strain/sprain/post trauma back pain/bilateral lower extremity incomplete paralysis LS nerve root * left shoulder strain * left knee strain/Baker’s cyst * bilateral allergic conjunctivitis and blepharitis with left corneal scar * scar status post lipoma excision 12. U.S. Army Human Resources Command (AHRC) Permanent dated 17 February, awarded the applicant the Combat Action Badge for actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy on 9 October 2006. 13. The applicant was ordered to active duty for Contingency Operation for Active Duty Operational Support (CO-ADOS) from 1 April 2007 through 21 April 2008, when he was honorably released from active duty due to the completion of required active service after 1 year and 21 days. 14. The applicant was ordered to an Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) status under Title 32 from 1 October 2008 through 30 September 2011, when he was honorably released from active duty due to completion of required active service after 3 years net active service this period. 15. The applicant’s National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) shows he was honorably discharged from the ARNG on 2 October 2011, after 11 years, 1 month, and 4 days of net service for the purpose of enlistment/appointment in another component of the U.S. Armed Forces. 16. On 3 October 2011, the applicant was appointed a Reserve Commissioned Officer in the Army in the rank of second lieutenant. 17. A VA Rating Decision, dated 30 March 2012, shows the applicant was granted the following service-connected disability ratings for the following conditions: * PTSD, 50 percent * low back strain, 10 percent * incomplete paralysis, L5 nerve root, left lower extremity secondary to low back strain, 10 percent * incomplete paralysis, L5 nerve root, right lower extremity secondary to low back strain, 10 percent * lipoma excision with residual tender scar, 10 percent * left knee strain, 10 percent * left shoulder strain, 10 percent * cervicogenic headaches, 30 percent * bilateral allergic conjunctivitis and blepharitis with anterior scar left eye, 10 percent 18. A VA Compensation and Pension Exam, dated 13 December 2012, shows the applicant was diagnosed with a TBI which occurred secondary to an IED blast on 9 October 2006 in Iraq. The functional impact shows applicant’s residual conditions that may be attributable to TBI or PTSD do in fact impact his ability to work and his social interactions. It is difficult to state precisely whether these problems are due to the PTSD or to the TBI. There is significant evidence that he did in fact suffer a head injury from the IED in Iraq in 2006. 19. The applicant provided numerous Periodic Health Assessments. The first one, dated 26 September 2014, shows the applicant indicated he had ongoing back issues and migraines since October 2006. He also indicated difficulty sleeping and concentrating. 20. A DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile), dated 26 September 2014, shows he was given a temporary physical profile rating of “3” for physical capacity or stamina and for lower extremities due to head injury with residual migraine headaches and back pain. He was expected to be fully mission capable on 25 December 2014. 21. A DA Form 3349, dated 2 March 2015, shows he was given a temporary physical profile rating of “3” for physical capacity or stamina and for lower extremities and a rating of “2’ for psychiatric, due to headache, low back pain, and PTSD. 22. A second Periodic Health Assessment shows the applicant indicated ongoing back, left knee, and headache pain for which he took Ibuprofen. 23. A third DA Form 3349, dated 4 October 2016, shows the applicant retained a temporary physical profile rating of “3” for physical capacity or stamina and for lower extremities due to headache secondary to TBI with residual migraine headaches and lower back injury/pain and a rating of “2” for psychiatric, due to a behavioral health condition. 24. A Headquarters, U.S. Army Reserve Command memorandum, dated 5 October 2016 stated the applicant was recommended for an MEB and had met his medical retention decision point for the following diagnoses: * headaches secondary to TBI * low back injury 25. A letter from his Neurologist, Dr. D____ C____, dated 3 November 2016, states the applicant suffers from multiple TBI with persistent psycho-cognitive impairment and chronic headaches. He has been disabled due to persistent sequela from TBI. 26. AHRC, dated 2 December ordered the applicant to active duty to participate in Reserve Component Managed Care – Evaluation/Disability Evaluation System effective 7 December 2016. 27. A DA Form 3349, dated 10 January 2017, shows the applicant had a physical profile rating of “2” in physical capacity or stamina, upper extremities, and lower extremities, and had a physical profile rating of “3” in psychiatric. It also shows the applicant was currently in the MEB process. Documentation from his 2017 MEB proceedings are not in his available records for review. 28. A VA letter, dated 28 March 2017, shows the applicant received the following ratings for the following conditions: * PTSD with major depressive order was increased from 50 percent to 70 percent effective 31 October 2016 * left shoulder strain was increased from 10 percent to 20 percent effective 31 October 2016 * low back strain was decreased from 20 percent to 10 percent effective 7 December 2016 * cervicogenic headaches continued at 30 percent * TBI continued at 70 percent * restrictive lung disease, status-post blunt trauma with chest pain continued at 0 percent * bilateral allergic conjunctivitis and blepharitis, with an anterior stromal scar left eye continued at 10 percent * lipoma excision with residual tender scar continued at 10 percent * incomplete paralysis, L5 nerve root, right lower extremity continued at 10 percent * incomplete paralysis L5 nerve root, left lower extremity continued at 10 percent * left knee strain continued at 10 percent * lipoma excision with residual scar 0 percent effective 1 October 2011 * lipoma excision with residual scar 0 percent effective 1 June 2012 * 29. A DA Form 199 (IPEB Proceedings) shows: a. An IPEB convened on 7 July 2017 and found the applicant unfit, with a recommended rating of 70 percent and that his disposition be permanent disability retirement for PTSD with major depressive disorder (MEB diagnosis 2). b. He was found fit for the following conditions because they met retention standards and combined or alone did not cause physical profile limitations or indicate performance issues were due to these conditions: * MEB diagnosis 3 - mild neurocognitive disorder due to TBI * MEB diagnosis 4 – post-traumatic lumbosacral strain/sprain * MEB diagnosis 5 – left shoulder strain * MEB diagnosis 6 – left knee strain/Baker’s cyst * MEB diagnosis 7 – bilateral allergic conjunctivitis and blepharitis with left corneal scar * MEB diagnosis 8 – scar status post lipoma removal trunk * MEB diagnosis 9 – headache including migraine variants * MEB diagnosis 10 – restrictive lung disease status post blunt trauma with chest pain c. On 8 July 2017, the applicant concurred with the IPEB findings and recommendations and waived a formal hearing of his case. He did not request reconsideration of his VA ratings. 30. U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency, dated 23 August, released the applicant from assignment and duty because of physical disability with a rating of 70 percent and placed him on the retired list effective 17 September 2017. 31. On 29 May 2018, the State of New Jersey, Department of Human Services approved the applicant’s request for award of the TBI Fund, approving support and services for the applicant’s selected vendors related to assistive technology evaluation, occupational therapy evaluation, cognitive therapy evaluation, psychiatric treatment, psychological evaluation and psychological treatment. 32. An AHRC memorandum, dated 23 September 2017, informed the applicant his claim for CRSC was approved at a total combined percentage of 100 percent effective October 2017 for the following conditions: * hearing loss, right ear, 0 Percent * left knee strain, 10 percent * cervicogenic headaches, 30 percent * PTSD with major depressive disorder, 70 percent * tinnitus, 10 percent * TBI, 70 percent 33. The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge, which disqualify the Soldier from further military service. The Army disability rating is to compensate the individual for the loss of a military career. The VA does not have authority or responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service. The VA may compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability. 34. Title 38, USC, sections 1110 and 1131, permit the VA to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service. However, an award of a VA rating does not establish an error or injustice on the part of the Army. 35. Title 38, CFR, Part IV is the VA’s schedule for rating disabilities. The VA awards disability ratings to veterans for service-connected conditions, including those conditions detected after discharge. As a result, the VA, operating under different policies, may award a disability rating where the Army did not find the member to be unfit to perform his duties. Unlike the Army, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings. 36. Based on the applicant's contention, the Army Review Board Agency medical staff provided a medical review for the Board members. See "MEDICAL REVIEW" section. MEDICAL REVIEW: 1. The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor was asked to review this case. Documentation reviewed included the applicant’s ABCMR application and accompanying documentation, the military electronic medical record (AHLTA), the VA electronic medical record (JLV), the electronic Physical Evaluation Board (ePEB), the Medical Electronic Data Care History and Readiness Tracking (MEDCHART) application, and the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS). The ARBA Medical Advisor made the following findings and recommendations: 2. On 27 October 2016, the applicant was referred to the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) for post-traumatic back pain and post-traumatic headaches. Claimed conditions included mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and a variety of other conditions. The applicant’s medical evaluation board (MEB) evaluated him for a total of 10 conditions. They determined that his referred conditions of post-traumatic back pain and post-traumatic headaches, along with his mTBI, to meet the medical retention standards of AR 40-501, Standards of Medical Fitness (22 December 2016). They determined his PTSD and major depressive disorder (an unclaimed condition) to both fail medical retention standards. Following counseling by his physical evaluation board liaison officer (PEBLO), he agreed “with the board’s findings and recommendations” on 18 January 2017 and was referred to the physical evaluation board (PEB). 3. When the PEB convened on 7 July 2017, at which time they found him unfit for “Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, with Major Depressive Disorder.” The Veterans Benefits Administration’s Seattle Disability Ratings Activity Site rated this condition as 70% disabling. The PEB applied this rating to the applicant’s unfitting disability and recommended that he be retired for physical disability. After being counseled on these findings by his PEBLO, the applicant declined the opportunity to have his disability rating reconsidered, waived his right to a formal hearing, and concurred with these findings on 8 July 2017. 4. In his Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) Commander’s Performance and Functional Statement completed 5 October 2016, the applicant’s commander recommended that he be retained in the Army. He checked boxes indicating: The Soldier does perform duties of his MOS, to include assigned MOS duties in unit. The Soldier is in an appropriate organizational position for his grade and MOS. The Soldier’s medical conditions/limitations do not affect the unit accomplishing its mission. 5. He went on to state that he had not observed “diminished performance due to PTSD or other mental disorder;” not observed “inappropriate social interactions;” seen no “interference of performance due to TBI;” and “observed normal workplace interactions.” His final three Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs) covering his performance from 3 October 2013 thru 16 March 2016 show he was performing above standard. In his most recent OER, the senior rater marked the applicant as “Highly Qualified” stating, “1LT {Applicant} is an exceptionally talented officer whose performance and maturity are that of a more senior and experienced officer. He is bright, energetic and a hard working officer who maintains high standards and exhibits a pleasant, professional demeanor and collaborates smoothly and effectively with his superiors, peers, and subordinates. 1LT {Applicant} is ready for advancement, promote ahead of peers” 6. The applicant has received a 70% service connected rating from the VA and is currently so rated. Since he received this rating, he has been on active duty at least twice, records showing that one period was from 1 October 2011 thru 22 March 2012. 7. Extensive medical documentation shows the applicant to have an mTBI, and that he is working with providers in order to continue to both heal and adapt to this condition. However, there is insufficient evidence upon which this condition could be determined to be an unfitting condition prior to his discharge from the Army. Paragraph 3-1 of AR 635- 40, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation (20 March 2012) states, “The mere presence of an impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier reasonably may be expected to perform because of their office, grade, rank, or rating.” Given the current information, it is the opinion of the Agency Medical Advisor that a referral of his case back to IDES is not warranted. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The Board considered the applicant’s statement, through counsel, and the complete evidentiary record, including the ARBA Medical Review, and found insufficient evidence that the applicant’s additional medical conditions were unfitting at time of discharge and should be reevaluated through the DES. During the applicant’s period of military service, his military medical records indicate that the applicant met military medical retention standards IAW AR 40-501 for the requested conditions. The applicant’s performance evaluations indicate the applicant was performing above standard and the commander’s assessment indicates no impairment. Additionally, the applicant served on active duty subsequent to his medical retirement. The VA properly provided him support and benefits for service connected medical concerns post-service. 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. Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, provides the Secretaries of the Military Departments with authority to retire or discharge a member if they find the member unfit to perform military duties because of physical disability. The U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency is responsible for administering the Army physical disability evaluation system and executes Secretary of the Army decision-making authority as directed by Congress in chapter 61 and in accordance with DOD Directive 1332.18 and Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation). a. Soldiers are referred to the disability system when they no longer meet medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3, as evidenced in an MEB; when they receive a permanent medical profile rating of 3 or 4 in any factor and are referred by an MOS Medical Retention Board; and/or they are command-referred for a fitness-for-duty medical examination. b. The disability evaluation assessment process involves two distinct stages: the MEB and PEB. The purpose of the MEB is to determine whether the service member's injury or illness is severe enough to compromise his/her ability to return to full duty based on the job specialty designation of the branch of service. A PEB is an administrative body possessing the authority to determine whether or not a service member is fit for duty. A designation of "unfit for duty" is required before an individual can be separated from the military because of an injury or medical condition. Service members who are determined to be unfit for duty due to disability either are separated from the military or are permanently retired, depending on the severity of the disability and length of military service. Individuals who are "separated" receive a one-time severance payment, while veterans who retire based upon disability receive monthly military retired pay and have access to all other benefits afforded to military retirees. c. The mere presence of a medical impairment does not in and of itself justify a finding of unfitness. In each case, it is 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. Reasonable performance of the preponderance of duties will invariably result in a finding of fitness for continued duty. A Soldier is physically unfit when a medical impairment prevents reasonable performance of the duties required of the Soldier's office, grade, rank, or rating. 2. Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army Disability Evaluation System and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating. Only the unfitting conditions or defects and those which contribute to unfitness will be considered in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity warranting retirement or separation for disability. Once a determination of physical unfitness is made, all disabilities are rated using the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). a. Paragraph 3-2 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 military service. b. Paragraph 3-4 states Soldiers who sustain or aggravate physically-unfitting disabilities must meet the following line-of-duty criteria to be eligible to receive retirement and severance pay benefits: (1) The disability must have been incurred or aggravated while the Soldier was entitled to basic pay or as the proximate cause of performing active duty or inactive duty training. (2) The disability must not have resulted from the Soldier's intentional misconduct or willful neglect and must not have been incurred during a period of unauthorized absence. 3. Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) governs medical fitness standards for enlistment, induction, appointment (including officer procurement programs), retention, and separation (including retirement). The Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). VASRD is used by the Army and the VA as part of the process of adjudicating disability claims. It is a guide for evaluating the severity of disabilities resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of or incident to military service. This degree of severity is expressed as a percentage rating which determines the amount of monthly compensation. 4. Department of Defense (DoD) Directive-Type Memorandum (DTM) 11-015 (Disability Evaluation System) explains the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES). The version in effect at the time defined the IDES process and procedures. The guidelines within the DTM were incorporated in the DoD Manual Number 1332.18 (DES Manual: General Information and Legacy DES Time Standards). a. The IDES is the joint DoD-VA process by which DoD determines whether wounded, ill, or injured Service members are fit for continued military service and by which the DOD and the VA determine appropriate benefits for Service members who are separated or retired for a Service-connected disability. The IDES features a single set of disability medical examinations appropriate for fitness determination by the Military Departments and a single set of disability ratings provided by the VA for appropriate use by both departments. Although the IDES includes medical examinations, IDES processes are administrative in nature and are independent of clinical care and treatment. b. Unless otherwise stated in this DTM, DOD will follow the existing policies and procedures promulgated in DOD Directive 1332.18 (Disability Evaluation System (DES)) and the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Memoranda. All newly-initiated, duty-related physical disability cases from the Departments of the Army, Air Force, and Navy at operating IDES sites will be processed in accordance with this DTM and follow the process described in this DTM unless the Military Department concerned approves the exclusion of the Service member due to special circumstances. Service members whose cases were initiated under the legacy DES process will not enter the IDES. c. IDES medical examinations will include a general medical examination and any other applicable medical examinations performed to VA compensation and pension (C&P) standards. Collectively, the examinations will be sufficient to assess the member’s referred and claimed condition(s) and assist the VA in ratings determinations and assist military departments with unfit determinations. d. Within 15 days of receiving the proposed disability ratings from the Disability Rating Activity Site (D-RAS), the PEB will apply the rating using the diagnostic code(s) provided by the D-RAS to the Service Member’s unfitting conditions and publish the disposition recommendation. For example, if the PEB identifies a condition to the D-RAS as “schizophreniform disorder”, but the D-RAS rates the condition as “psychotic disorder NOS (VASRD 9210), the PEB will apply the rating as “schizophophreniform disorder rated as psychotic disorder NOS (VASRD 9210). e. Upon separation from military service for medical disability and consistent with Board for Corrections of Military Records (BCMR) procedures of the Military Department concerned, the former Service member (or his or her designated representative) may request correction of his or her military records through his or her respective Military Department BCMR if new information regarding his or her service or condition during service is made available that may result in a different disposition. For example, a veteran appeals the VA’s disability rating of an unfitting condition based on a portion of his or her service treatment record that was missing during the IDES process. If the VA changes the disability rating for the unfitting condition based on a portion of his or her service treatment record that was missing during the IDES process and the change to the disability rating may result in a different disposition, the Service member may request correction of his or her military records through his or her respective Military Department BCMR. 5. Title 38 USC, section 1110 (General - Basic Entitlement) states for disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, in the active military, naval, or air service, during a period of war, the United States will pay to any veteran thus disabled and who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable from the period of service in which said injury or disease was incurred, or preexisting injury or disease was aggravated, compensation as provided in this subchapter, but no compensation shall be paid if the disability is a result of the veteran's own willful misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs. 6. Title 38 USC, section 1131 (Peacetime Disability Compensation - Basic Entitlement) states for disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, in the active military, naval, or air service, during other than a period of war, the United States will pay to any veteran thus disabled and who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable from the period of service in which said injury or disease was incurred, or preexisting injury or disease was aggravated, compensation as provided in this subchapter, but no compensation shall be paid if the disability is a result of the veteran's own willful misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20190013308 15 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1