RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        19 JULY 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040008312


      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:

|     |Mr. Ted Kanamine                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John Meixell                  |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Lawrence Foster               |     |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, in effect, disability retirement or separation.

2.  The applicant states that she should have been medically discharged due
to medical profiles.  She states, in effect, that she was not scheduled to
be separated until 1993 but was discharged in June 1991 after being sent to
Fort Stewart, Georgia.  She states she was not given a “medical board” for
her service connected conditions.

3.  She states that she is applying for this correction because over the
past 14 years she has been experiencing excruciating pain in both feet and
that her joints have deteriorated to the point that it is almost unbearable
to walk and do her daily chores.  She states that she has been unable to
continue teaching because of these conditions, in addition to her
depression, anxiety and urinary incontinence.

4.  In a statement submitted in support of her request, the applicant notes
that she was “given a hardship discharge” and that her “medical records or
medical profile were not taken into account.”  She states she was not able
to have her medical issues addressed.  She goes on to list a variety of
medical conditions that she has experienced since her discharge which she
maintains are related to her service connected disabilities.

5.  She states her urinary incontinence stems from an “involuntary
accident” in 1998 during a unit run, that she has had difficulty getting
out of bed every morning since 1989, and that she was diagnosed with
“plantar fasciatis” at Womack Army Hospital.  In 1987 she states she
fractured her right elbow during a training exercise and now suffers from
mild arthritis.  She also notes that prior to fracturing her elbow she fell
off the stairs in the mobile home she was residing in and sprained her
right ankle.  She has had neck pain since falling off the “victory tower”
during basic training.  The applicant goes on to cite several other
incidents were she suffered injuries during her military career, although
none of them occurred after 1988.

6.  The applicant provides extracts from her service medical records,
documents confirming her Department of Veterans Affairs ratings, and copies
of several medical treatment records completed after her separation from
active duty.




CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 28 June 1991.  The application submitted in this case is
dated
30 September 2004.

2.  Title 10, U.S. 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 allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant entered
active duty on 1 June 1986 and reenlisted on 29 June 1989 for a period of 4
years in order to be assigned to a military intelligence unit in Key West,
Florida.  Based on her reenlistment, her separation date was scheduled as
28 June 1993.

4.  The service medical records, submitted by the applicant as part of her
application to this Board, indicate that in August 1990 she underwent
elective sterilization, in December 1990 she was giving a temporary profile
as a result of a heel spur which “required surgical intervention,” an April
1991 record of consultation by an orthopedic physician for chronic right
knee pain, a May 1991 temporary profile, the basis of which was not
recorded, and a 10 May 1991 document placing her on 24 hours quarters for
cramps following a cervical biopsy.

5.  The applicant’s performance evaluation reports indicate that she passed
the Army’s Physical Fitness Test in March 1987, July 1988, February 1989,
April 1990, and October 1990.  Her Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard
notes that she scored 279 points, out of a possible score of 300, on the
October 1990 test.  The previous April she had scored 276 points.  In
November 1990 she was recommended for promotion to pay grade E-6 and was
awarded the maximum score of 200 points for her duty performance by her
commander as part of his recommendation.

6.  Documents in the applicant’s file indicate that she originally
initiated an application for a hardship discharge, based on problems
associated with being a single parent in the high cost living area of Key
West, in the summer of 1990.  However, her request was ultimately not
approved until 31 May 1991.
7.  The applicant was reassigned from Key West to Fort Stewart, Georgia in
June 1991 for separation processing.  She was released from active duty on
28 June 1991.  An 11 June 1991 automated Personnel Qualification Record
indicates the applicant’s physical profile was 1-1-1-1-1-1 at the time.

8.  Subsequent to her separation, the medical documents submitted in
support of her request indicate that she was treated for a variety of
complaints and conditions in 1996 and in 1994 a Radiology Diagnostic Report
showed mild degenerative arthritic changes in her right wrist.  A 1996
Department of Veterans Affairs rating document indicates that she was
granted a 10 percent service connected disability rating for a “service
connected neck condition with headaches” effective on 31 January 1996, but
none of her other conditions were disabling for rating purposes.  By
September 2004 her Department of Veterans Affairs Rating decision showed
that she had received a 20 percent rating for degenerative disc disease, a
40 percent rating for fibromyalgia with headaches, and a 10 percent rating
for residuals of right knee injury.

9.  Army Regulation 635-40 states that the mere presence of an impairment
does not, in 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.

10.  Army Regulation 40-501, at paragraph 3-3a, provided, in pertinent
part, that performance of duty despite an impairment is evidence of
physical fitness.

11.  Army Regulation 635-40 states that when a commander believes that a
Soldier of his or her command is unable to perform duties because of
physical disability, the commander will refer the Soldier to the
responsible medical treatment facility.  It also states that commanders of
medical treatment facilities who are treating Soldiers may also initiate
action to evaluate the Soldier’s physical ability to perform the duties.

12.  Title 38, United States Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permit the
Department of Veterans Affairs to award compensation for disabilities which
were incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  However, an
award of a Department of Veterans Affairs rating does not establish error
or injustice in the basis for separation from the Army.  An Army disability
rating is intended to compensate an individual for interruption of a
military career after it has been determined that the individual suffers
from an impairment that disqualifies him or her from further military
service.  The Department of Veterans Affairs, which has neither the
authority, nor the responsibility for determining physical fitness for
military service, awards disability ratings to veterans for conditions that
it determines were incurred during military service and subsequently affect
the individual’s civilian employability.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The fact that the applicant may have incurred several service connected
medical conditions while in the Army, or that those conditions ultimately
resulted in her award of disability compensation by the Department of
Veterans Affairs, is not evidence that she should have be medically
discharged or retired.

2.  The evidence available to the Board suggests that the applicant was
performing her duties, in spite of any medical complaints she might have
had, until she was discharged, at her request, as a result of hardships
imposed as a result of being a single parent in a high cost of living area.
 There is no evidence that any of her medical conditions preclude
performance of her duties.

3.  The applicant implies that she was forced out of the Army prior to her
scheduled separation and that as such she was denied appearance before a
medical board.  The evidence, however, shows that the applicant requested
separation and there is no medical evidence that indicates she had any
disabling medical conditions which would have warranted referral for
disability processing.

4.  The fact that she is receiving disability compensation from the
Department of Veterans Affairs is not evidence of any error or injustice in
the Army’s basis for her separation, which was based on her voluntary
request for discharge.  The Department of Veterans Affairs, operating under
its own policies and regulations, assigns disability ratings as it sees
fit.  Any rating action by that agency does not compel the Army to modify
its reason or authority for separation.

5.  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.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 28 June 1991; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
27 June 1994.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of
limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to
show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to
timely file in this case.


BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__TK____  ___JM __  ___LF  __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




                                  _____ Ted Kanamine_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040008312                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050719                                |
|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.                      |                                        |


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