RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        3 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050001034


      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. G. E. Vandenberg              |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Thomas D. Howard, Jr.         |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John Infante                  |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Carman Duncan                 |     |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, that his record be corrected to show
he was separated from active duty with severance pay and that his
disability evaluation rating be greater than 20 percent.  He also requests
back pay for the period between his date of separation from active duty and
the completion of his Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).

2.  The applicant states he had a medical evaluation board/physical
evaluation board (MEB/PEB) in process at the time he was released from
active duty and because of this he was not properly separated.  He believes
that his condition warrants a higher disability evaluation.

3.  The applicant provides copies of two DD Forms 214 (Certificate of
Release or Discharge), a 4 August 2002 MEB, a 4 October 2002 AF Form 618
(MEB Disposition), a 17 March 2004 DA Form 2173 (Statement of Medical
Examination and Duty Status), one page of a 16 August 2004 DA Form 199 (PEB
Proceedings), and five pages of 2003 VA medical treatment records.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The records show the applicant enlisted in the Army Reserve (USAR)
under the Delayed Entry Program (DEP) on 26 June 1996.  He entered active
duty on 20 June 1997 and was honorably separated from active duty with
transfer to the Army Reserve (USAR) on 19 June 2001.  He had a Reserve
obligation through 25 June 2004.

2.  The applicant's service medical records are not available for Board
review.

3.  He was ordered to active duty for training for the period 4 January
2002 through 31 October 2002 to attend advanced individual training (AIT).

4.  While attending AIT, the applicant was diagnosed as suffering from Type
I diabetes mellitus and was referred to an MEB.

5.  A 4 August 2002 MEB report indicates a family history of diabetes with
the applicant's onset of the condition occurring in May 2002.  He was found
to have no obvious complications at this time and was placed on a P-4
temporary profile. He was started on a diabetic diet and insulin
injections.  No physical activity limitations were placed on the applicant.

6.  A 4 October 2002 AF Form 618 (Medical Evaluation) recorded the findings
that the applicant's diabetes was incurred while entitled to basic pay and
did not exist prior to service.  He was to be referred to an initial PEB;
however, it does not appear that this was completed prior to his release
from active duty.

7.  The applicant was released from active duty on 31 October 2002 due to
completion of ADT under USAR self-terminating orders.

8.  A 17 March 2004 DA Form 2173 (Statement of Medical Examination and Duty
Status) indicates that, while on active duty for training, the applicant
was diagnosed as suffering from Type I diabetes on 28 June 2002.  The
condition was found to have been incurred in the line of duty.

9.  On 22 July 2004 a PEB found that the applicant had few restrictions and
no other physical manifestations resulting from his diabetes.  However, he
was found not fit for retention in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501,
paragraph 3-11d due to the restrictions based on his medication and need to
be near a major medical facility that significantly limited his duty
assignments.

10.  The PEB found that the applicant had developed Type I diabetes
mellitus while on active duty.  It determined that his condition was not
due to misconduct, had been incurred while entitled to base pay, was a
proximate result of his performing duty, and was in the line of duty.  The
PEB determined that his condition prevented reasonable performance of his
duties and recommended the applicant be separated with a 20 percent
disability evaluation.

11.  On 23 July 2004 the applicant was given a permanent P-3 profile and
was found to have limited mobilization potential due to the restrictions
arising from his diabetes.  No physical activity limitations were placed on
the applicant.

12.  On 2 August 2004 the applicant submitted an appeal of the PEB findings
contending that he was suffering from a greater disability level than
reflected by the 20 percent evaluation.  He submitted VA medical records
showing treatment for his diabetes on several occasions between 26 October
2003 and 21 April 2004.

13.  The VA medical treatment records indicate the applicant was seen in
the emergency room for hypoglycemic episodes on 26 October 2003, 31 March
2004, and 21 April 2004.  The last episode resulted in an automobile
accident.



14.  A 22 July 2004 Army medical examination indicates that the applicant
was not suffering from any secondary complications of his diabetes.  His
condition was considered chronic but stable and well controlled with diet
and daily insulin usage.

15.  A DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board Proceedings) indicates the
applicant concurred with the PEB findings on 24 August 2004.

16.  Army Physical Disability Agency Orders D268-02, dated 24 September
2004 directed that the applicant be discharged by reason of a non-combat
related disability of 20 percent, with entitlement to severance pay.

17.  A computer generated statement of service indicates that on 26 October
2004 the applicant was involuntarily discharged from the USAR with a
narrative reason for separation of expiration of his term of USAR obligated
service (ETS).

18.  The record indicates the applicant's records were corrected to show he
was medically separated with severance pay on 24 September 2004.

19.  The available records contain no indication that the applicant
requested voluntary retention beyond his AIT obligated service in 2002 or
at the end of his period of USAR obligated service.

20.  Title 10, United States Code, chapter 61, provides disability
retirement or separation for a member who is physically unfit to perform
the duties of his office, rank, grade or rating because of disability
incurred while entitled to basic pay.

21.  Army Regulation 135-178 paragraph 2-15 states that a Soldier is
entitled to be discharged on the expiration of his or her service
obligation, and normally will be discharged unless action is taken to
retain the Soldier beyond such expiration date.  Soldiers may voluntarily
remain beyond the expiration date of a service obligation if they are
undergoing required health care or are being processed for physical
disability separation.

22.  Army Regulation 135-178, paragraph 4-3 states that a Soldier may not
be held in the Army beyond the normal expiration of service obligation
unless the service obligation is extended by law or the provisions of
paragraph 2-15.

23.  Army Regulation 135-178, paragraph 15-1k states that a Soldier will be
discharged when it has been determined that the Soldier is no longer
qualified for retention by reason of medical unfitness under AR 40-501 , AR
40-3 ) unless the Soldier requests and is granted a waiver.  Soldiers who
do not meet the medical fitness standards for retention due to a condition
incurred while on active duty, any type of active duty training or inactive
duty training will be processed under Army Regulation 635-40.

24.  Army Regulation 635-40, Appendix B-98 states that in determining the
disability level for diabetes "insulin dosage is not a good indicator of
the severity and is only one of the factors to consider in the overall
evaluation of the disease. Response to specific therapy, diet, activity,
compliance, and time are all-important."  It further states "Care must be
taken that ratings reflect the severity of the diabetes, as such, and that
undue importance not be given to early or questionable complication."

25.  The Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) has noted in advisory
opinions in similar cases that confusion frequently arises from the fact
that the Army and the VA use different rating systems.  While both use the
Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD), not all
of the general policy provisions set forth in the VASRD apply to the Army.
The Army rates only conditions determined to adversely affect the
individual’s ability to perform assigned duties.  Physical disability
separation pay or retirement compensates the individual for loss of a
career.  The VA, on the other hand, may rate any service-connected
impairment, in order to compensate the individual for loss of civilian
employability or social functioning.  The USAPDA has also pointed out that
military disability ratings are based upon the degree to which a medical
condition affects the ability to perform duty and not upon the diagnosis or
name attached to the condition.  By way of comparison, the VA can and does
rate an individual simply for the existence of a diagnosis or condition.
An example is a compensable rating for pain. The Army could rate the same
painful condition only if it impaired the Soldier’s ability to perform
assigned tasks.

26.  Title 38, Part 4, Book C, Code of Federal Regulations, (commonly
referred to as the VASRD) lists the manifestations of diabetes mellitus by
percentage level as follows:

      10% - Manageable by restricted diet only;

      20% - Requiring insulin and restricted diet, or oral hypoglycemic
agent and restricted diet;

      40% - Requiring insulin, restricted diet, and regulation of
activities;


      60% - Requiring insulin, restricted diet, and regulation of physical
activities with episodes of ketoacidosis or hypoglycemic reactions
requiring one or two hospitalizations per year or twice a month visits to a
diabetic care provider, plus complications that would not be compensable if
rated separately.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant has failed to demonstrate that he was unable to perform
his duties or was rendered unfit as a result of his diabetes at the time of
the completion of his AIT.

2.   The applicant has provided no documentation to show he had any
restriction of his physical activities or that he was suffering from any
additional complications arising from his diabetes at the time of his
separation from active duty or his discharge from the Army Reserve.
Therefore, a higher disability evaluation is not warranted.

3.  He was properly released from active duty and returned to his position
in the USAR in 2002.  At that time he had not yet been found unable to meet
retention requirements and he continued to serve in his USAR capacity.  He
is not entitled to active duty pay during this interim period.

4.  The processing of his MEB/PEB continued during his USAR service period
and his medical condition was reevaluated.  He was found to not meet
retention standards in 2004 and recommended for medical separation with
severance pay.

5.  The applicant appealed the disability percentage and the PEB evaluated
his VA and service medical records and the contentions he set forth in his
appeal.  The PEB continued to hold that the applicant was manifesting
symptoms meeting a 20 percent disability evaluation.  The applicant
concurred with this determination on 24 August 2004.

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

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__TDH___  __JI   ___  __CD___  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.





                                  _    Thomas D. Howard, Jr.____
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2005001034                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051103                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |Deny                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES       1.         |108                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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