RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:  
	 

	BOARD DATE:           22 September 2005
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050001841


	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

Mrs. Nancy L. Amos

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. James E. Anderholm

Chairperson

Mr. Bernard P. Ingold

Member

Mr. Michael J. Flynn

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 he be allowed to return to active duty.

2.  The applicant states, in a memorandum to his Senator, he was placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) after being diagnosed with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and multiple sclerosis (MS).  He has been medically classified as cancer free, no longer suffers from AML, and his MS is presently stable.  Unfortunately, 5 years was not enough time for him to recover from two serious illnesses.  The Army had no choice but to retire him after 5 years on the TDRL.  He feels he morally still owes his country and the Army at least 10 years of service.  

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty); a letter from his commander, dated 16 July 1990, recommending he be reclassified; his TDRL orders; his permanent retirement orders; an Associate in Arts degree certificate dated 16 December 1991; and an Associate in Science degree certificate dated 15 May 1991.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 April 1987.  

2.  On 16 January 1996, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) referred the applicant to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for diagnoses of (1) chronic cervical and lumbar pain; (2) degenerative joint disease, stable; (3) and a urinary stricture and hesitancy, stable.  The PEB found him unfit for military service with a 20 percent disability rating.  The applicant did not concur and demanded a formal hearing.

3.  On 6 June 1996, a formal PEB considered additional diagnoses of (1) mechanical back and neck pain; (2) essential tremor; (3) right carpal tunnel syndrome; (4) right peroneal neuropathy at the fibular head; (5) possible fibromyalgia; (6) one oligocional band noted on cerebral spinal fluid examination, no diagnosis of demyelinating disease; and (7) urinary retention secondary to a prior old cervical spinal cord injury.  The original diagnoses 2 and 3 and the second diagnosis 2 through 7 were not found to be unfitting.  The applicant was found unfit for military service with a 20 percent disability rating.

4.  On 31 August 1996, the applicant was honorably discharged by reason of physical disability with severance pay.

5.  Shortly after his separation, the Department of Veterans Affairs awarded the applicant a combined service-connection rating of 60 percent based on (1) AML, in remission, 30 percent; (2) chronic cervical and lumbar pain with paraspinal spasm, 20 percent; (3) urinary control problems, 10 percent; (4) right ankle post traumatic arthralgia, 10 percent; (5) carpal tunnel syndrome, right hand, 0 percent; (6) history of chronic sinusitis, 0 percent; (7) left leg lateral femoral cutanceous nerve syndrome with hyperesthesia, 0 percent; and (8) right peroneal neuropathy at the fibular head, 0 percent.

6.  The applicant applied to this Board to change his medical separation with severance pay to a medical retirement.  On 30 June 1999, the Board found the applicant was diagnosed with probable MS, a slow-developing disease, within one month of his separation and so almost certainly had MS while in the service. The Board concluded MS should be added as an unfitting condition and he should have been placed on the TDRL.

7.  Based upon the Board's 30 June 1999 recommendation, the applicant was placed on the TDRL effective 1 September 1996 and removed from the TDRL and permanently retired effective 16 August 2001.

8.  The applicant provides no evidence to show his current medical condition.

9.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) prescribes the function of the TDRL.  The TDRL is used in the nature of a “pending list.”  It provides a safeguard for the Government against permanently retiring a Soldier who can later fully recover, or nearly recover, from the disability causing him or her to be unfit.  Conversely, the TDRL safeguards the Soldier from being permanently retired with a condition that may reasonably be expected to develop into a more serious permanent disability.  A Soldier's name may be placed on the TDRL when it is determined the Soldier is qualified for disability retirement but for the fact that his or her disability is determined not to be of a permanent nature and stable.  A Soldier may remain on the TDRL for a maximum of 5 years, after which the physical disability for which the Soldier's name was carried on the TDRL shall be considered to be of a permanent nature and stable.

10.  The National Institutes of Health internet cite Medlineplus.gov describes MS as an unpredictable disease of the central nervous system and states there is as yet no known cure for MS.


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's feeling that he morally still owes his country and the Army at least 10 years of service, especially in this time of war, is admirable.  

2.  The applicant's contentions that he has been medically classified as cancer free, no longer suffers from AML, and his MS is presently stable have been carefully considered.

3.  However, the National Institutes of Health have described MS as an unpredictable disease with no known cure.  The applicant still has the disease, which could destabilize at any time.  For the applicant's own protection, it would not be in his best interests or the best interests of the Army to allow him to return to active duty.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jea___  __bpi___  __mjf___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.




		__James E. Anderholm__
		        CHAIRPERSON





INDEX

CASE ID
AR20050001841
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20050922
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
Mr. Chun
ISSUES         1.
108.00
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.