RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         02 DECEMBER 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004104774


      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             |
|     |Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock             |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Raymond Wagner                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas O'Shaughnessy          |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Laverne Berry                 |     |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.  In effect, the applicant requests that a Physical Evaluation Board
(PEB) be convened to reconsider her case based on tests conducted on her
subsequent to the PEB proceedings.

2.  The applicant states that the medical board findings were completed on
       8 January 2004.  Through no fault of her own, she could not get the
EMG tests completed until 26 January 2004.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of the EMG test results and her medical
board packet.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's complete military records are unavailable.  However,
her       DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty) shows that she entered on active duty on 10 September 1993 and was
discharged on          30 January 2004 under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-40 with disability severance pay in the amount of $37830.00.
 That form also shows that she was retained in the service for 1422 days
for the convenience of the government.

2.  A medical board report, dated 15 November 2000, shows that the
applicant was seen as an outpatient in the Orthopaedic Clinic, Naval
Medical Center, Portsmouth, Virginia, for evaluation with a diagnosis of
right sacroiliac joint dysfunction.  That report indicates that she
sustained posttraumatic degenerative joint disease following an injury, and
that she underwent an operation on           23 February 2000.  That report
shows that she continued to complain of some musculoskeletal back pain with
mild radicular components, chronic pain through the right aspect of the
pelvis, and an inability to perform her duties, and that she should be
referred to the Army reviewing authority for disposition.  Her condition
was diagnosed as chronic lower extremity radicular pain and chronic lower
extremity musculoskeletal back pain.  The medical board opined that her
condition interfered with the reasonable performance of her assigned duties
and referred her case to the Army reviewing authority.  The applicant
stated that she did not desire to submit a statement in rebuttal of the
contents, opinions, and recommendations of the medical board.  The medical
board proceedings were approved on 24 January 2001.

3.  On 26 November 2001 the Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) notified
the Physical Disability Agency that a presumptive finding of IN LINE OF
DUTY was made in the case of the applicant for the back and neck injuries
she sustained on 21 February 1996 at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

4.  In an 11 February 2003 memorandum, the applicant's commanding officer
stated that the applicant's duty performance had been extremely limited due
to her profile, and that the only function that she could do was
clerical/office duties.

5.  A 12 February 2003 medical report shows that the applicant was
undergoing physical therapy at the Naval Medical Center in Portsmouth.
That report shows that she had a right L4-5 microscopic lumbar discectomy
on 23 December 2002.

6.  A 30 July 2003 Naval Medical Center report of medical board shows that
the applicant was seen as an outpatient in the Orthopaedic Spine Surgery
Clinic for evaluation of chronic low back and right hip, buttock, and leg
pain.  The report indicated that the applicant underwent four separate
surgical procedures for her condition, the last in December 2002.  It also
indicated that she continued to experience intermittent right lower
extremity radicular symptoms.  Her condition was diagnosed as right
sacroiliac joint dysfunction and instability; L5-S1 herniated nucleus
pulposus; L4-5 herniated nucleus pulposus; and right L5 and S1 epidural
fibrosis.  The Medical Board recommended that she be referred to the Army
reviewing authority for fitness for duty determination.  The Medical Board
report was approved on 20 August 2003.

7.  A 25 August 2003 physical profile report shows that her physical
profile serial was 3 1 3 1 1 1 because of her medical condition.

8.  An addendum to the Medical Evaluation Board summary, dated
       15 September 2003, shows an additional condition, diagnosed as
chronic pelvic pain; probable endometriosis with negative biopsies.

9.  On 3 October 2003 the Medical Department Activity at Fort Eustis,
Virginia, indicated that the applicant concurred with the findings and
recommendations of the Naval Medical Center medical board proceedings.

10.  On 16 October 2003 a PEB determined that the applicant was physically
unfit because of chronic low back pain with intermittent right lower
extremity radicular symptoms post right sacroiliac fusion for sacroiliac
dysfunction and microdiscectomies L4/L5 and L5/S1.  The PEB indicated that
there was no disk recurrence, but an MRI (magnetic resonance imaging)
showed epidural fibrosis.  Straight leg raising was positive on the right
and exacerbated with foot dorsiflexion.  There were no focal neurological
defects and motor strength was 5/5.  The PEB recommended a 10 percent
disability rating.  The PEB also determined that she was physically unfit
because of chronic pelvic pain with suspected endometriosis, but negative
biopsy.  It recommended a 10 percent disability rating for this condition.
The PEB thus recommended a 20 percent disability rating and separation with
severance pay.

11.  The applicant nonconcurred with the PEB findings and recommendations
and demanded a formal hearing.  She also submitted an appeal to the effect
that because of her conditions she could not walk, sit, or lay down for
long periods of time, could not bend over, and had difficulty cleaning the
house and carrying groceries.  She also stated that she awoke at night in
pain and could not sleep because of her pain and discomfort.  She stated
that she could not exercise, causing her to gain weight, affecting her
emotionally.  Because of the scar on her buttocks, she had to be careful
when she sat down because of the pain.  Because of her surgery, her right
buttock cheek, right side of her thigh, and her foot were numb.  She stated
that her never-ending pain was a result of her performing her duties.  She
would have to live the rest of her life in severe pain and require constant
medical attention.  On 27 October 2003 the PEB noted her rebuttal, but
stated that because she had not provided any information as to any new
diagnosis or changes on her rated disability, the PEB affirmed the decision
of the informal PEB  that found her unfit with a disability rating of 20
percent.

12.  On 29 October 2003 the applicant was informed that a formal hearing
would be convened on 8 January 2004 at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center
to evaluate her physical condition.  On 8 January 2004 the applicant signed
a waiver of the formal PEB, stating that she did not agree with the
informal PEB decision but would not submit additional information at that
time.  She indicated that she would provide additional documents after
appointment with a neurologist to have a nerve test (EMG), and possibly a
ROM (range of motion) test.

13.  The applicant was discharged with severance pay on 30 January 2004.

14.  Title 10, United States Code, section 1203, provides for the physical
disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years service and a
disability rated at less than 30 percent.

15.  On 26 January 2004 the applicant underwent an EMG (electormyogram)
examination at the Naval Medical Center in Portsmouth.  The impression
arrived at showed that the EMG and NCV (nerve conduction velocity) revealed
electrophysiological abnormalities suggestive of (1) possible mild right
distal superficial peroneal neuropathy involving myelin.  There was no
evidence of axonal involvement.  It indicated that in the absence of other
findings, a significant conclusion could not be drawn.  The finding needed
to be carefully correlated with clinical and ancillary data to determine
significance, and (2) there was no electrophysiological evidence of right
deep peroneal or tibial mononeuropathy.  There was no evidence of right
lumbosacral plexopathy or right lumbar radiculopathy.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was discharged because of her low back pain with
intermittent right lower extremity radicular symptoms and her chronic
pelvic pain with a         20 percent disability rating.  She disagreed
with the decision, but waived her right to a formal physical evaluation
board, indicating that she would provide additional evidence after an
appointment with a neurologist to have a nerve test (EMG).

2.  The impression given by EMG examination does not warrant any change in
the disability rating recommended by the 16 October 2003 PEB.  The results
of the EMG examination do not warrant reconsideration of her case by a new
PEB.
The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing
argument in support of her request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___RW__  ___TO __  __LB  ___  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.





                                  ____ Raymond Wagner_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004104774                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20041202                                |
|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]