RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         04 JANUARY 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004106345


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

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Karen Heinz                   |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Robert Duecaster              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. James Gunlicks                |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that his “retirement” date be adjusted from 10
August 2003 to 29 December 2003.

2.  The applicant states that he was diagnosed with cancer in 1992 and
underwent a right hemicolectomy to beat the cancer.  He states that he
lived the next 11 years with the side affects of having only a third of his
large intestine and in March 2002 he was diagnosed with Crohn’s Disease.
After 18 months with the severe affects of the disease with no cure he was
medically retired with 19.7 years of service.  He states that his
retirement date should be changed “due to a mandatory medical retirement 4
months short of twenty years.”

3.  The applicant provides copies of his service medical records in support
of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant entered
active duty as an enlisted Soldier on 29 December 1983.  He was promoted to
pay grade
E-8 on 1 February 2000 in specialty 95B (military police).  He served
continuously through a series of reenlistment actions and in June 2001 he
executed an indefinite reenlistment contract.

2.  On 12 February 2003 the applicant underwent a physical examination as
part of a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).  His chief complaint was
“intermittent worsening abdominal pain related to Crohn’s Disease making it
difficult for him to perform his duties as a Soldier and specifically as a
military policeman.”

3.  The examination noted that the pain started back in the early 1990s
when he had an appendectomy performed in Germany in late 1992.  The summary
noted that “apparently he had a carcinoid tumor in conjunction with the
appendectomy…and for the first few years following this surgery he did
remarkably well with no limitations in his functional status, no profiles,
and no limitations in ability to perform his duty or physical training.”
In the beginning of 2001, he began to have progressive intermittent pain
and diarrhea with some rectal bleeding.

4.  The summary stated that “most recently he has been requiring increasing
doses of narcotic pain relief including up to 8-10 Percocet a day and
within the last month was started on fentayl patches for a more continuous
dose of narcotic medication….”  It also noted that “over the last few
months he has essentially been unable to function at his job at all and has
been replaced.”  The applicant was ultimately diagnosed with Crohn’s
Disease, in addition to several other non-disabling conditions, and
referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).  The applicant concurred
with the findings and recommendation of the MEB.

5.  An informal PEB, conducted on 22 April 2003, concluded that the
applicant’s Crohn’s Disease rendered the applicant medically unfit and
recommended retirement by reason of physical disability with a 30 percent
disability rating.  The PEB proceedings contain the statement “it is noted
that you have applied for continuance on active duty.  The recommendation
regarding your separation or retirement and compensation apply if your
application for continuance is denied.” The applicant concurred with the
findings and recommendation of the PEB and waived his right to a formal
hearing.

6.  On 24 April 2003 and “administrative correction” was made to the
original PEB proceedings.  The administrative correction deleted the
continuation on active duty remark and added a remark that the continuation
on active duty memorandum had been withdrawn as an exhibit.  A copy of that
memorandum was not in files available to the Board.

7.  On 10 August 2003 the applicant was retired by reason of physical
disability in pay grade E-8.  He had 19 years, 7 months, and 12 days of
active Federal service at the time.

8.  Army Regulation 635-40 states that certain Soldiers who are eligible
for retirement or separation because of physical disability may be
continued on active duty.  It notes that the primary objective of this
program is to conserve manpower by effective use of needed skills or
experience.  A Soldier who is physically unqualified for further active
duty has no inherent or vested right to be continued on active duty.  To be
considered for continued active duty a Soldier must be found unfit, capable
of maintaining one’s self in a normal military environment without
adversely affecting one’s health and the health of others and without undue
loss of time from duty for medical treatment, physically capable of
performing useful duty in a specialty for which he or she is currently
qualified or potentially trainable.  In addition to the preceding, an
individual who has 15 years but less than 20 years, or is qualified in a
critical skill or shortage specialty, or disability as result of combat,
may also be considered for continued active duty.

9.  Army Regulation 635-40 also states that when a Soldier with 18 years
but less than 20 years of active service is referred to a PEB for further
processing and elects not to submit a request for continuation on active
duty, such election will be in writing and attached to the MEB proceedings.
 If the Soldier does not indicate in writing his or her desire not to
request continuation on active duty, the PEB Liaison Officer will include a
signed certificate stating that the Soldier has been counseled and elects
not to submit an election in writing.

10.  Army Regulation 635-40 and the Department of Defense Financial
Management Regulation note that a Soldier is eligible for disability
retired pay if he has a rating of less than 30 percent and has 20 years of
active service for retirement or if he or she has a disability rating of 30
percent or higher.  The percentage multiplier is either the total
disability percentage rating or 2.5 percent of the total years of service
(including any fraction thereof, that is, 7 months equals 7/12 and
disregard any fraction of a month).  Use the higher percentage of the two,
but not more than 75 percent, as a multiplier of the retired pay base to
arrive at the retired pay entitlement.  For Soldiers who first became
members of the Armed Forces after 7 September 1980, retired pay base is
computed on 1/36 of the total amount of monthly basic pay received for the
high-36 months of active duty.

11.  Until recently, Title 38 United States Code, stated that any person
entitled to receive retirement pay based on service could not receive such
pay concurrently with benefits payable under laws administered by the
Department of Veterans Affairs.  However, Public Law 108-136, the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, contained a provision to
restore the retired pay currently deducted from retirees’ accounts to their
receipt of Department of Veterans Affair (VA) compensation.  This
restoration of retired pay is known as Concurrent Disability Pay.  It is
applicable to all retirees who have a VA-rated, service-connected
disability of 50 percent or higher with the exception of disability
retirees with less than 20 years of service.  The phased-in restoration
began on
1 January 2004 and will increase each year until January 2014 when eligible
members will receive their full retired pay entitlement and their VA
disability compensation with no reduction.

12.  There were no documents available to the Board regarding receipt of VA
disability by the applicant.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  While the documents associated with either the applicant’s request for
or declination of continued active duty were not available to the Board,
the evidence which is available suggests that the applicant was at least
aware that such a request could have been made.  The statement contained in
his original PEB proceedings and subsequent deletion of that statement,
supports this conclusion.

2.  Notwithstanding the absence of such statements, the applicant had no
inherent right to remain on active duty merely to attain 20 years of active
Federal service.  As such, there is no error or injustice in his medical
retirement with less than 20 years of service.  It should be noted that the
applicant concurred with the findings and recommendation of the PEB and
waived his entitlement to a formal hearing.

3.  It is possible that with the recent change in legislation that the
applicant would now be financially better off had he been retained on
active duty until he reached 20 years of service and that may have prompted
him to submit his request to this Board.  However, that change does not
establish any error or injustice in the applicant’s disability processing,
and is not evidence that even if he had requested retention that, given the
debilitating nature of his condition and the extent of his narcotic intake,
that such a request would have been approved.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy that requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___KH __  __RD ___  ___JG   _  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.





                                  ______Karen Heinz_________
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004106345                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050104                                |
|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.                      |110.00                                  |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]