APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That her military records be corrected to show that she was retired by reason of physical disability.

APPLICANT STATES:  That at the time of separation she met the criteria for permanent disability retirement.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

That, as a member of rvicArmy Reserve, she was ordered to active duty on 8 January 1991 in support of Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield and subsequently served in a hospital at Fort Deven, Massachusetts as a wardmaster in the rank of sergeant first class.

A VA Rating Decision shows that the applicant submitted a claim to the VA on 29 August 1991 and was awarded a e60 percent ratingthe misconduct that might result in a discharge under other tha of under other than honorable conditions.  The commander exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the soldier may abate the adminiscussed. She refused, and over the course of the next few months spent many weeks at bed rest both at Walter Reed and at home with very gradual but not complete improvement.”

The applicant’s evaluation (NCOER) for the period ending in September 1991 indicates that she continued to perform her military duties with a physical profile and assignment limitations until she was separated from active duty.  Her rater rated her competence as exceeding standards (excellence).  He rated her physical fitness and military bearing as meeting standards (Success) and commented that she had a “Full profile awaiting board action.”  Her senior rater rated her overall potential as “Superior” and commented “Performs beyond expectations continuously   Should be promoted ahead of peers.”

A Medical Evaluation Board (MEBD) Narrative Summary dictated on 1 April 1993 shows that following a fall down some stairs while loading a truck in April 1991 she was hospitalized for back pain which failed to resolve with conservative treatment and she was then transferred to Walter Reed Army Medical Center for further evaluation.  An MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) of the spine and brain (because of possible multiple sclerosis) was normal.  The MEBD recommendation shows “The diagnosis of multiple sclerosis is somewhat tenuous at this time.  However, this is substantiated by her submjective improvement on Baclofen (a medicine used in treatment of that illness).  This is going to require ongoing neurological follow-up on a regular basis...However, at this time she does meet retention standards under Army Regulation 40-501 guidelines, both for the diagnosis of herniated nucleus pulposus, as well as under the auspices of the neurological guidelines for multiple sclerosis.”  Return to a duty status was recommended.




DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), it is concluded:

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT          

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director