ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 1 April 2022 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220000609 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * correction of her military records, including the Fort Sill MEDDAC Form 515, 6 August 1999, DA Form 3947 (Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings), 2 November 1999, and DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board), 9 November 1999 to show all her medical conditions * correction of the narrative reason shown on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) from "Disability, Severance Pay" to “Disability, Retirement” APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), 23 March 2021 * Self-authored letter, 21 March 2021 * several list of appointments, 1995-2019 * several Standard Form 600 (Health Record) * List of injuries * several DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile) * DA Form 5571 (Master Problem List), July 1999 * several Standard Form 513 (Consultation Sheet) * FSMEDDAC Form 515, 6 August 1999 * Standard Form 93 (Report of Medical History), 31 August 1999 * MEDCOM Form 695-R (Medical Record-Low Back Pain), 20 September 1999 * Optional Form 275/12 (Medical Record Report), 22 October 1999 * DA Form 3947 (Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings), 2 November 1999 * DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board), 9 November 1999 * Department of Veteran Affairs, Rating Decision letter, 15 December 1999 * DD Form 214 * Eunice Community Medical Center, X-Ray Department, 17 July 2003 * several Radiology Reports * several Medical Records * several Progress Notes * several Consult Records * several Compensation and Pension Exam Reports * several Problem Lists * Columbus Diagnostic Center, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, 5 August 2019 FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three-year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code, 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: a. She was unfairly rated. She was rated at 20 percent for only one disability. She would have been [medically] retired from the military if her arthritis and other service- connected disabilities were included in her rating. The arthritis in her feet was a day to day issue that continued after leaving the military. She was not aware that she could [submit an] appeal. In the medical evaluation board (MEB) first review of her case, they only determined [her disability of] pes planus with secondary arthritic changes to the mid tarsus as medically unacceptable. She had other injuries in 1995 that were giving her a lot of problems. For example, her patellar femur syndrome, anemia, female issues and lumbosacral strain/chronic low back pain; just to name a few were overlooked. b. According to the policies, if a service member has multiple conditions, each one must be unfitting in and of itself to be rated. To determine this, each condition is looked at as though it were the only condition they had. All by itself, does it still make them unfit for duty? If yes, then it is ratable. Her knee, anemia, female, and back issues were never considered as part of her MEB process. And, if this is the case, they should have been included since they were incurred while in service. These conditions would have given her a higher discharge rating and retirement status. c. She was unfairly rated at 20 percent instead of at 30 percent or more for retirement status. The MEB did not take into consideration the long-term effects of arthritis when making the decision about her rating. d. The MEB has given Soldiers ratings of 10 percent with the same chronic low back pain and knee injuries. Her injuries were not included for any rating. In Case Number PD-2020-00163 the individual had low back pain and scoliosis, but his disability was rated at 10 percent by the physical evaluation board (PEB). Case Number PD-2020- 00158 the individual was an active duty specialist/E-4, Health Care Specialist, whom was medically separated for "low back pain" with a disability rating of 10 percent. e. This is injustice knowing that all of her injuries or illness such as patellofemoral pain syndrome (PFS) (knees), anemia, female issues (ovarian cysts, fibrocystic breast issues) and chronic low back pain (idiopathic scoliosis) were never considered and overlooked even though the board had my medical records. f. The MEB was aware of the other injuries and did not include them in the rating process. It was listed on the Medical Report, but there is no statement that they were taken into consideration for the MEB process. g. The MEB/PEB were aware that the chronic low back pain and PFS existed when reviewing her medical records, but never considered it to be rated nor did they specify that those were given a chance to be rated. She was not informed that she could include those service-connected disabilities to the MEB/PEB, she was rushed through the process. h. On DA Form 3947 (Medical Board Proceedings), column E, it shows, injuries permanently aggravated by the service, and states “no.” However, arthritis does not disappear overnight. The attached list of doctor visits shows that the conditions have worsened. i. Her VA Compensation and Pension Exam Reports (C&P) exam dated 19 December 1999, stated that she has low back pain with chronic lumbosacral strain. If the VA noticed chronic lumbosacral strain, when the x-ray was done in the military, the MEB should have noticed; they were completed a few months apart. j. The Board should take into consideration that she was diagnosed with a bilateral degenerative condition that was secondary to pes planus by the Reynolds Army Community Hospital on, 30 July 1999. If she would have been considered for retirement she could have received the necessary treatments. k. The Board should consider the totality of the conditions related to the chronic low back pain, knee injury, ongoing female issues, and arthritis in her feet/back/knees and how they have impacted her unfitness for duty. She believes that the arthritic changes in her feet at the time of the Board review should have warranted retirement as arthritis does not go away but continues to wreak havoc on her everyday life. l. In regard to Fort Sill MEDDAC Form 515 line 1 shows, the original diagnosis on the Initial Notification of Pending Medical Board only listed symptomatic pes planus and no other condition. She requests a correction, and for the Board to include all the medical disabilities incurred during her time in service to include PFS and chronic low back pain to be considered for retirement. Also take into consideration the dates in which these injuries occurred and still exist. m. In regards to DD Form 3947 (Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings) line 12 states, “did not present views in own behalf.” She was unaware that she could present views; the process was rushed. Line 13 states, “diagnosis: list all diagnosis.” Unfortunately, not all of her medical conditions were considered or listed. The Board should include all of the medical disabilities incurred during her time in the service to include PFS and chronic low back pain. Block C states, “permanently aggravated by service, no.” The Board should change it to “yes.” n. In regard to DA Form 199 (Physical Disability Report) item 8 states, the Board considered the member's condition described in the records. It also states each disability is listed below in descending order of significance. This is incorrect, the only disability that considered her unfit for duty from her medical records were pes planus and secondary arthritic change in the mid tarsus with extra osseous spur formation. She was not allowed to list any other medical conditions such as PFS or chronic low back pain that would have made her unfit for duty and possibly considered for retirement. She concurred because she was not aware that her other injuries were not considered. o. In regards to DD Form 275 (Medical Record Report) in the section listed “All other conditions,” it shows, the patient is also being seen for musculoskeletal reasons involving the lower back and a previously diagnosed condition in 1995 of patellofemoral syndrome. These additional diagnoses listed above should have been considered as a part of the diagnosis and included in the rating decision individually as an individual diagnosis per the army regulation. If they would have been considered it would have shown that she had degenerative joint disease in both knees from the x-rays. 3. On 4 October 1994, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army. She completed training and she was awarded military occupational specialty 92A (Automated Logistical Specialist). 4. The applicant provided the following: a. Appointment list for several feet and ankle conditions from 1995 to 2019. b. Standard Form (SF) 600 (Health Record), 12 January 1995, that shows, in part knee pain once a day. [Applicant] felt discomfort while walking downstairs, denies trauma. c. SF 600, 17 January 1995, that shows, in part, knee pain five times a day, [applicant] denies injury. d. Appointment list for several knee and foot conditions, from 1995 to 2019. e. List that shows in part, in: (1) item 17 – * Chronic Low Back Pain * Bilateral Patellar Pain Syndrome * Calcaneal Fracture Bilateral * Tarsal Tunnel (2) item 19a – * Severe Pes Planus, June 1998 to present, Reynolds Army Hospital Fort Sill, OK * Bilateral Arthritis, December 1997 to present, Reynolds Army Hospital Fort Sill, OK * Chronic Low Back Pain, August 1999 to present, Reynolds Army Hospital Fort Sill, OK * Bilateral Patellar Pain Syndrome, July to present, Reynolds Army Hospital Fort Sill, OK * Calcaneal Fracture Bilateral, January to present, 121 General Hospital, Korea * Tarsal Tunnel, March 1995 to June 1996, 121 General Hospital, Korea f. Appointment list for several back conditions from 1997 to 2018. g. DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile), 1 December 1997, that shows, in part, the applicant received a permanent profile due to the condition of bilateral arthritis of the feet. h. SF Form 600, 9 March 1999, that shows, in part, a follow up of pes planus pain in left foot, with arthritic changes. i. DA Form 5571 (Master Problem list), which shows, in part, PFS, with dates of occurrences on 17 January 1995 and July 1999. j. SF 513 (Consultation Sheet), 9 July 1999, which shows, in part, bilateral PFS, with knee pain and swelling on occasion. k. a permanent physical profile, on 30 July 1999, that shows, in part, a medical condition for bilateral degenerative arthritic condition secondary to bilateral symptomatic severe pes planus. The limitations included walk at own pace and distance, and no prolonged standing for more than 30 minutes. l. FSMEDDAC Form 515, 6 August 1999 that shows, in part, [applicants] initial notification of pending medical board for her diagnosis of symptomatic pes planus. m. SF 513, 18 August 1999, for her diagnosis of chronic lower back pain, musculoskeletal. n. Temporary physical profile, on 18 August 1999, that shows, in part, a medical condition for chronic low back pain. o. SF 93 (Report of Medical History), 31 August 1999, that shows, in part the purpose of examination is due to chapter. Health is fair. They further noted yes for the past/current medical history: * swollen or painful joints * severe tooth or gum trouble * hernia * arthritis, rheumatism or bursitis * recurrent back pain or any back injury * foot trouble p. Medical Form 695-R (Medical Record – Low Back Pain), 24 September 1999, which shows, in part, a written statement, “lifted up a part in a job while pregnant in the beginning of 1997.” q. Radiologists Report, 24 September 1999, which shows, in part, no disc herniation’s or central canal stenosis. No significant foraminal narrowing is identified as well. r. Optional Form 275/12 (Medical Record Report), 22 October 1999, which shows in part: (1) Chief Complaint: Constant aching pain of the medial longitudinal arch and metatarsal region bilaterally secondary tapes planus and associated arthritic changes involving certain joints in the tarsus and mid tarsus region. (2) Why Referred: Physician directed Medical Evaluation Board. (3) All Other Conditions: Past medical history is noncontributory. The [applicant] is also being seen for musculoskeletal reasons involving the lower back and a previously diagnosed condition in 1995 of patellofemoral syndrome during AIT at Fort Lee. The [applicant] does not have any known drug allergies. (4) Military History: The [applicant] is a 30-year-old female, active duty, with an MOS of 92A. [Applicant] is currently stationed at Fort Sill, OK. For further details, please see military personnel records. (5) History of Present Illness: The [applicant] is a 30-year-old, active duty Soldier who developed bilateral symptomatic foot pain approximately eight months after entering the military. Since 3 March 1995 the [applicant] has sustained multiple ankle sprains and associated foot and lower leg fatigue secondary to symptomatic pes planus. The arch pain, swelling and throbbing of both feet is about equal except for certain times when the left foot appears to be more symptomatic than the right. The condition is especially pronounced during weight bearing activities to include running, prolonged walking, jumping on and off tactical vehicles, climbing up and down stairs, ambulating across various terrain experienced in the field and during physical training. The impact of this is that she cannot perform essential aspects of her military mission which includes lifting, climbing up and down stairs, prolonged standing and walking. Treatments thus far have included profiles with limitation of activity, shoe modifications, physical therapy to include ultrasound and ankle range of motion exercises and finally dynamic custom molded and prefabricated inserts. The [applicant] has now been in the military for approximately five years with no alleviation of symptoms. (6) Present medications: None. (7) Review of Systems: Noncontributory. (8) Physical Examination: Podiatric exam: The musculoskeletal exam indicates a limitation of ankle dorsiflexion with the knee extended and ankle dorsiflexion to approximately five to seven degrees with the knee flexed. The vascular status of the foot is intact with palpable pulses of both the dorsalis pedis. s. a DA Form 3947 (Medical Evaluation Board Proceedings), 2 November 1999, which shows, in part: * [applicant] did not present views in own behalf * diagnosis 734/71697, symptomatic pes planus with secondary arthritis changes to the mid tarsus * the approximate date of origin, 1995 * incurred while entitled to base pay, “Yes” * existed prior to service, “No” * permanently aggravated by service, “No” t. a DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings), 9 November 1999, which shows, in part, in item 8: * the informal PEB considered the members condition described in the records. Each disability is listed below in descending order of significance * disability description: chronic bilateral foot pain, with pes planus and secondary arthritic changes in the mid tarsus with extra ossequs spur formation * based on a review of the objective medical evidence of record, the PEB finds that the Soldier's medical and physical impairment prevents reasonable performance of duties required by grade and military specialty * the board finds the Soldier is physically unfit and recommends a combined rating of 20 percent * and that the Soldiers disposition be: separation with severance pay if otherwise qualified u. Radiographic Report, 18 November 1999, that shows, in part, no evidence of acute fracture or dislocation. Mild narrowing of the medial compartment of the joint spaces bilaterally suggestive of early degenerative changes. v. VA Rating Decision letter, 15 December 1999, that shows, in part: * service connection for lumbosacral strain is granted with an evaluation of 10 percent effective 5 January 2000 * service connection for bilateral pes planus with bilateral calcaneal fractures is granted with an evaluation of 30 percent effective 5 January 2000 * service connection for patellofemoral syndrome, right knee is granted with an evaluation of 10 percent effective 5 January 2000 * service connection for patellofemoral syndrome left knee is granted with an evaluation of 10 percent effective 5 January 2000 * service connection for right or left tarsal tunnel syndrome is denied * service connection for left ankle sprain is granted with an evaluation of 10 percent effective 5 January 2000 * service connection for right ankle sprain is granted with an evaluation of 10 percent effective 5 January 2000 5. On 4 January 2000, the applicant was honorably discharged. Her DD Form 214 shows she completed 5 years, 3 months and 1 day of net service this period. It also shows in: * item 25 (Separation Authority) – Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 4-24B (3) * item 28 – (Disability, Severance Pay) 6. The applicant provided: a. Medical record, 26 May 2000, that shows, in part, [applicant] has a long history of bilateral foot and knee pain that is service connected. An assessment of degenerative arthritis and bilateral knee and foot pain, stable. b. Medical record, 18 June 2001, that shows, in part, an x-ray was completed on 8 May 2001, both knees reported as within normal limits. The impression shows bilateral chondromalacia patella. She was instructed on strengthening exercises, and weight reduction. c. Compensation and Pension Exam (C&P) Report, 22 September 2001 and 15 October 2001, that shows, in part, during the physical examination the [applicant's] strength in her lower extremities is 5/5 bilaterally in all muscles including iliopsoas, quads, hamstrings, plantar flexors and dorsal flexor, there are no musculature, postural or reflex abnormalities noted. There is mild-to-moderate amount of tenderness to palpation of the patient’s lower midline lumbar spine in her sacroiliac joint. Her range of motion is essentially normal. There is no loss of strength. The [applicants] level of pain is moderate. There is no fatigability, lack of endurance of incoordination. Times of flare- up the [applicants] pain likely increases and her range of motion likely worsens 10%. d. Medical progress notes, 11 March, 2003, that shows, in part, an active problem of osteoarthritis. e. C&P Exam Report, 28 March 2003, that shows, in part, x-rays to the spine were taken and show an increased sacral carrying angle. The increased sacral carrying angle noted on the spine x-ray is caused by the obesity. Minor abnormality. The exam results also showed bilateral PFS with residual complaints of pain and normal range of motion. f. Eunice Community Medical Center, X-Ray Department, completed a bone scan on 17 July 2003, which shows, in part, mild idiopathic scoliosis. g. Radiology Results on 23 March 2017, shows, in part, three views of the lumbar spine. The findings are normal osseous mineralization and alignment without fracture or dislocation. Mild multilevel lumbar spondyloarchropathy manifested by minute anterior endplate osteophytes throughout the entire lumbar spine. Mild to moderate disc height loss at L5-S1 compatible with degenerative disc disease. The remainder lumbar levels are without disc height loss. No pars interarticularis defect or listhesis. No appreciable facet osteoarthritis. Normal sacroiliac joints. h. Radiologic Examination Report on 28 March 2018, shows, in part: (1) three views of the thoracic spine were obtained. The frontal view demonstrates a mild curvature convex to the right. There are small osteophytes noted at multiple thoracic levels, as well as degenerative calcifications, anteriorly. The disc spaces are unremarkable. There is a mild thoracic kyphosis. (2) three views of the lumbar spine were performed. Comparison is made to 23 March 2017. There is a small calcification projecting just above the medial aspect of the right iliac wing, which is unchanged since an abdomen radiograph 17 November 2017. The etiology of this finding is uncertain. The frontal view demonstrates five non rib-bearing lumbar vertebrae. There appear to be degenerative changes of the left L4 -5 facet joint. There is minimal anterior displacement of L4 relative to L5. Small anterior osteophytes are noted at L2-L5. There is minimal disc space narrowing L4-5. (3) three views of the right knee were obtained. There is cortical thickening involving the shafts of the tibia and fibula posteriorly, consistent with tug lesions. There may be minimal narrowing of the medial compartment. There is normal joint space at the lateral and patellofemoral compartments. There is minimal degenerative bony change at the medial and lateral compartments. No joint effusion was identified. (4) three views of the left knee were obtained. There is mild lateral patellar spurring. Tug lesions of the tibia and fibula are noted. On the lateral view there are tiny opacities noted projecting at the superior aspect of the patellofemoral joint, of uncertain etiology. No joint effusion was identified. The joint spaces are intact. There is minimal degenerative spurring of the proximal tibia. i. Columbus Diagnostic Center, MRI of the right knee, on 5 August 2019, shows, in part, there is a very mild lateral patellar tilt/subluxation and edema within the superior lateral aspect of Hoffa's fat pad, appearance can be seen in patients with chronic lateral patellar tracking. Mild patellofemoral osteoarthrosis and small to moderate Baker's cyst. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. MEDICAL REVIEW: 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/or the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS). The ARBA Medical Advisor made the following findings and recommendations: a. The applicant has applied to the ABCMR requesting additional medical conditions be determined to have been unfitting prior to her discharge, an increase in her military disability rating, with a subsequent change in her disability discharge disposition from separated with severance pay to permanent retirement for physical disability. She states: “I request the following error or injustice in my record to be corrected due to being rated at 20% for only one disability to include arthritis and not having other disabilities that would have led to my retirement from the military. I believe the record in error or unjust is not considering the arthritis in my feet as an ongoing day to day problem that would continue and cause issues after leaving the military.” b. The Record of Proceedings details the applicant’s military service and the circumstances of the case. The applicant’s DD 214 shows she entered the regular Army on 4 October 1994 and was discharged with $14,973.00 of disability severance pay on 4 January 2000 under provisions in paragraph 4-24b(3) of AR 635-40, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation (1 September 1990). c. The applicant was placed on a permanent duty limiting physical profile for “Bilateral degenerative arthritic condition secondary to bilateral symptomatic severe pes planus {flat feet}” on 30 July 1999, and subsequently referred to a medical evaluation board (MEB). d. On 2 November 1999, an MEB determined the applicant’s conditions of “Symptomatic pes planus secondary to arthritis changes to the mid-tarsus” failed the medical retention standard in in chapter 3 AR 40-501, Standards of Medical Fitness. Additional conditions evaluated at that time included lower back and knee pain previously diagnosed as patellofemoral syndrome. These were determined to meet medical retention standards. e. Contemporaneous medical documentation shows she was seen and evaluated for low back pain. Radiographic evaluation, to include a CT scan, was negative. The applicant was treated with oral medication, temporary duty limitations, and physical therapy. Documentation also shows she was likewise treated conservatively for bilateral patellofemoral/retropatellar pain syndrome. The remainder of the medical documentation is dated after her separation, and while it shows she was subsequently diagnosed with several arthritic conditions, is not of significant probative value for this review of her pre-discharge medical conditions. f. On 3 November 1999, the applicant agreed with the Board’s findings and recommendation and her case was forwarded to a physical evaluation board (PEB) for adjudication. g. On 9 November 1999, the applicant’s informal PEB determined that her “Chronic bilateral foot pain with pes planus and secondary arthritic changes in the mid-tarsus with extraosseous spur formation” was the sole unfitting condition for continued service. Using the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) diagnostic code (DC) 5003 - Arthritis, degenerative -, they rated the condition at 20% and recommended that she be separated with severance pay. On 15 November 1999, after being counseled on the PEB’s findings and recommendation by his PEB liaison officer, the applicant concurred with the PEB. h. The VASRD is the document used to rate unfitting military disabilities. Paragraph B-1a and B1b of Appendix B to AR 635-40, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation (1 September 1990): a. Congress established the VASRD as the standard under which percentage rating decisions are to be made for disabled military personnel. Such decisions are to be made according to Title IV of the Career Compensation Act of 1949 (Title IV is now mainly codified in chap 61 of Title 10, United States Code). b. Percentage ratings in the VASRD represent the average loss in earning capacity resulting from these diseases and injuries. The ratings also represent the residual effects of these health impairments on civil occupations. i. Because her bilateral pes planus was the primary condition, her disability should have been rated using VASRD DC 5276 – Flatfoot. j. A Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) Rating Decision dated 15 December 1999 shows the applicant had submitted her disability claim to the VBA on 10 September 1999. It shows the VBA to have correctly rated the condition as 30% disabling using DC 5276: Severe; objective evidence of marked deformity (pronation, abduction, etc.), pain on manipulation and use accentuated, indication of swelling on use, characteristic callosities: Bilateral 30 Unilateral 20 k. Review of her records in JLV shows he has been awarded multiple VA service connected disability ratings. However, the DES compensates an individual only for service incurred medical condition(s) which have been determined to disqualify him or her from further military service. The DES has neither the role nor the authority to compensate service members for anticipated future severity or potential complications of conditions which were incurred or permanently aggravated during their military service; or which did not cause or contribute to the termination of their military career. These roles and authorities are granted by Congress to the Department of Veterans Affairs and executed under a different set of laws. l. It is the opinion of the ARBA Medical Advisor that the applicant should be permanently retired for physical disability with a 30% disability rating effective 5 January 2000. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that relief was warranted. The applicant’s contentions, the military record, a medical review, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. Based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the Board concurred with the medical reviewer’s findings and recommendation. The Board agreed there is sufficient evidence that shows the applicant should have received a disability retirement at the time of discharge. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 :X :X :X GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by: a. revoking Orders 348-0125, issued by U.S. Army Field Artillery School and Fort Sill on 14 December 1999 that discharged her with severance pay; b. issuing her orders from the Physical Disability Agency (PDA) showing she received a disability retirement on 4 January 2000, and was placed on the permanent disability retired list on 5 January 2000 with a 30% disability rating; c. reissuing her a DD Form 214 for the period ending 4 January 2000 showing the following: * block 23 – Retirement * block 25 – AR 635-40, Chapter 4 * block 28 – Disability – Permanent (Enhanced) * block 26 – SEJ * block 27 – NA; and d. allowing her to request retired pay through DFAS, and authorizing her retroactive retired pay and entitlements. 4/28/2022 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. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, United States 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 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. 2. Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) 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 or her office, grade, rank, or rating. Paragraph 3-1 of the PDES regulation contains guidance on the standards of unfitness because of physical disability. It states, in pertinent part, that the mere presence of 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. 3. Chapter 4 of the same regulation states that the PEB evaluates all cases of physical disability equitably for the Soldier and the Army. The PEB investigates the nature, cause, degree of severity, and probable permanency of the disability of Soldiers whose cases are referred to the board. It also evaluates the physical condition of the Soldier against the physical requirements of the Soldier's particular office, grade, rank, or rating. Finally, it makes findings and recommendations required by law to establish the eligibility of a Soldier to be separated or retired because of physical disability. 4. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has an impairment rated at less than 30 percent disabling. It further provides at section 1201 for the physical disability retirement of a member who has an impairment rated at least 30 percent disabling. 5. Title 38, U.S. Code, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service. a. 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. b. An award of a VA rating does not establish entitlement to medical retirement or separation from the Army. Operating under its own policies and regulations, the VA, which has neither the authority nor the responsibility for determining medical unfitness for military duty, awards ratings because a medical condition is related to service ("service-connected") and affects the individual's civilian employability. Furthermore, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings. //NOTHING FOLLOWS//