MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:


         BOARD DATE: 13 FEBRUARY 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002078012

         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson
Ms. Gail J. Wire		Member
Mr. Robert J. Osborn II		Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

         The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, reconsideration of his request for physical
disability retirement.

APPLICANT STATES: That he has a somatic disorder, is arthritic, has flat feet and an injured ankle. He never denied he had a serious illness. He recounts his years of service in the Army, states that a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) determined that he had bilateral flat feet, with restricted physical activities. He had a special shoe insert, and his injured ankle gave him severe pain during cold weather. He takes medication to reduce the pain. Before his accident he could run a mile in six or seven minutes. He had planned to remain in the Army, but his ankle prevented him from doing so. He did not know that he had a somatic disorder. The doctor in Landstuhl, Germany should have followed-up on his psychiatric treatment. The applicant submits a copy of a physical profile board proceedings dated 10 December 1985 showing a profile of 1 1 P2 1 1 1 for bilateral flat feet, a copy of a 30 April 2002 letter from a Member of Congress (MC) to him, a copy of a 16 April 2002 letter from the VA to that same MC, a copy of a 13 November 1986 medical record showing that he complained of chronic ankle pain, and a copy of a 26 January 1987 medical record showing that the applicant was evaluated by a psychologist. Except for the letters involving the MC, these documents were available to the 20 August 2002 Board.

In a 6 October 2002 follow on letter the applicant states that he had to repay approximately $17,000 back to the government because he received less than a 20 percent disability rating. He requests that the pattern of medical discharges be evaluated, e.g., ratings awarded black soldiers versus those awarded white soldiers. He could not stand in a formation for forty minutes. He had a P-4 profile. He talks about his duty assignments and his jobs. He states that the Army did not follow up on his somatic disorder. He requested a transfer from a cold climate to a hot climate. He had special shoe inserts when he was with the 547^th Ordnance Company. The Army selects white and black soldiers; thus, we have doctors who are bigots. If you believe he is fit for duty, please arrange for his entry on active duty. A P-4 profile is a serious profile and a person with that profile is not fit for active duty. He submits a copy of the 20 August 2002 Board proceedings with his letter.

In an 18 October 2002 letter the applicant states that he has damage to the cartilage in his right ankle and right foot, and no one in the Army so informed him. Cartilage damage was not indicated in his Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). He states that he damaged his cartilage in a parachute jump at Fort Benning, Georgia, and probably had or has bone spurs in his right ankle and left foot. His medical evaluation indicated he had a somatic disorder. He wore a long cast from his right foot to his waist, and wore a half cast for three months. No one



informed him about osteoarthritis. He contends that although the pain is to his right ankle, the pain is really coming from another part of his body. Cartilage damage can cause spurs on the bone in his right ankle and feet. Prior joint injuries cause osteoarthritis. The doctors did not tell him that somatic disorder meant pain throughout his body. The MEB only told him to touch his right ankle where the pain was located. He submits with this letter a copy of a 13 September 1982 physical profile proceedings showing that he had a temporary T3 profile because of a fractured right ankle, which was healing; a copy of the above mentioned 10 December 1985 profile board proceedings, a copy of an 18 March 1987 physical profile board proceedings showing that he had a 1 1 P4 1 1 1 profile because of pes planus, bilateral, severe, and a copy of the above mentioned 26 January 1987 evaluation by a psychologist. All these documents were available to the 20 August 2002 Board.

On 6 December 2002 he requested assistance from a Member of Congress. With his request he included a 20 November 2002 letter stating that the doctor who prepared his MEB papers falsified his military medical records.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 20 August 2002 (AR2002071508).

The Board is reconsidering the applicant’s request only because of his new arguments, that is, damage to his cartilage to his right ankle and foot, a somatic disorder, and osteoarthritis. He has provided no new evidence to support his arguments.

A 22 October 1986 report of medical examination, available to the August 2002 Board, shows that the applicant was not qualified for active duty with a physical profile serial of 1 1 4 1 1 1. That report indicates that he had a fracture to the distal right fibula that had healed without arthritis, and that he had mild pes planus which was sympotmatic.

A 26 January 1987 medical record, available to the August 2002 Board, shows that the applicant was seen in the psychology service at the 2^nd General Hospital on 20 January 1987 and administered various tests. Those tests showed that the applicant’s personality and emotional presentation was marked by his strong religious beliefs and overt optimism, that his career plans were to leave the military and attend seminary school, and that he showed a more than usual feeling of confidence, cheerfulness and persistence, even when experiencing disappointment. He had an optimistic attitude about the future. The results also

---

showed that he lacked insight into his feelings and the causes of his behavior, that he avoided unpleasant, exciting or violent topics and was relatively unresponsive emotionally. There was some indication that he believed that certain people were against him and were trying to make his life difficult and unpleasant but delusional content was not found. He was even-tempered and level-headed; carefully considered the future before acting; and generally had the patience to cope with situations. The record indicated that his primary defense was repression which would lend support for somatoform disorder diagnosis.

Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary defines somatoform as denoting psychogenic symptoms resembling those of physical disease.

That same dictionary defines somatic as pertaining to the characteristics of the body.

The common feature of the somatoform disorders is the presence of physical symptoms that suggest a general medical condition and are not fully explained by a general medical condition, by the direct effects of a substance, or by another mental disorder. The symptoms must cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other areas of functioning.

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

1. There is no evidence and the applicant has not submitted any to show that he had damage to his cartilage in his foot or ankle, nor that he was affected with arthritis. Notwithstanding the January 1987 psychologist report, there is no evidence that the applicant was diagnosed with a somatoform disorder The MEB proceedings, to which he agreed, and the 24 July 1987 formal PEB proceedings, in which he concurred, recommended that he be discharged because of right pes planus associated with mild contraction of the tendo Achilles. The applicant has not provided any evidence to show that he had any other medically disqualifying conditions.

2. The applicant has not provided any evidence of unfair medical treatment , or bias or malfeasance by doctors as he has stated.

3. The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

---

4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

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

__GVO__ __GJW__ __RJO __ DENY APPLICATION

                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002078012
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20020213
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	108.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.