RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        23 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050006412


      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. John N. Slone                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick H. McGann             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Larry J. Olson                |     |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 service medical records be corrected to
show he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) in August 1952.

2.  The applicant states he has been refused Department of Veterans Affairs
(DVA) service-connected disability compensation for MS because of the error
in making a proper diagnosis in 1952.  The diagnosis of Conversion Reaction
was either not possible or highly unlikely.  Conversion Reaction is a
mental disease that makes you think something is wrong with your body when
in fact there is nothing wrong.  MS is a neurological disease that, in his
case, is a series of ups and downs that are very unpredictable.

3.  The applicant states that, after his injury in Korea, he completed his
tour in Korea, volunteered for the Infantry and was awarded the Combat
Infantryman Badge, and successfully completed his enlistment.  He
subsequently had successful civilian careers.  Around 1978, he was
diagnosed with MS.  In 1980, one of his doctors believed he had his first
attack many years before 1978.  That doctor determined the applicant had MS
when he suffered from temporary blindness in one eye while in Korea.  In
November 1997, a Compensation and Pension doctor with the DVA decided the
1980 finding was correct, that the applicant's MS was service connected,
and he should be reimbursed at least back to 1978.  However, the DVA keeps
refusing to compensate him.  The DVA insists that the only test for MS is
an MRI.  He is claustrophobic and is not able to go through an MRI.  He
should be receiving 100 percent DVA disability.

4.  The applicant states he did not know this Board existed until he read
an article at the Internet site Military.com in December 2004.

5.  The applicant provides a 26 March 1952 request for waiver to attend
Officer Candidate School; an undated Report of Neuropsychiatric Evaluation;
a            19 August 1952 neurolgist's Summary; three sets of promotion
orders, dated     20 February 1953, 20 April 1953, and 20 June 1953;
temporary duty orders dated 28 February 1953; reclassification orders dated
16 March 1953; Combat Infantryman Badge and Purple Heart orders; a medical
summary dated             31 January 1980; a Compensation and Pension
Examination dated 17 November 1997; and a brain and spinal cord examination
dated 9 January 1999.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred at the latest in January 1980, when it appears he was first
diagnosed with MS.  The application submitted in this case is dated 20
April 2005.
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.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 August 1951.  He
arrived in Korea on an unknown date.

4.  On 28 July 1952, the applicant fell, striking the right mastoid on the
corner of an ammunition box.  He was momentarily dazed and sustained a
slight laceration of the scalp which did not require stitches.  In about 15
minutes, he [felt sufficiently well enough to stand] inspection.  He then
began to notice a slight blurring of vision of the right eye.  Right-sided
headaches and nausea developed. He was admitted to the hospital.  He became
nervous, and his posture was affected.  A neurological examination was
entirely within normal limits except there was a generalized, moderately
severe atrophy of right lower extremity (as a result of childhood polio).
An electroencephalogram (EEG) showed a borderline recording consistent with
head trauma.  During his hospital stay his anxiety improved, but the
eyesight in his right eye did not improve.  He was diagnosed with (1)
concussion, brain, recovered; (2) conversion reaction manifested by
blindness in the right eye and peculiar posture of raising the right
shoulder and flexing the head laterally to the right (dyskinesia); and (3)
atrophy, muscular myelopathic, non-progressive, right lower extremity,
secondary to poliomyelitis at five years of age.

5.  An undated psychiatric evaluation noted the history of the applicant's
accident and eye trouble and diagnosed him with "Encephalopathy due to
trauma.  Blow to right parietal region with momentary loss of
consciousness; blindness in right eye and mild central type facial
paresis."

6.  Both examinations indicated a recommendation/disposition of transfer to
Japan for further evaluation, treatment, and disposition.

7.  The applicant successfully completed his enlistment and was separated
on  27 August 1954.

8.  The applicant provided a 31 January 1980 summary from the Center for
Brain Research that noted he came under doctor's care on 10 January 1980
for evaluation of a progressive neurological disorder.  That summary noted
the applicant's 1952 injury, and it noted he had no further neurologic
problems until March 1978 when he found he was unable to run and would fall
down if he tried.  That summary noted that, based on the applicant's
history and physical findings, it was felt he had MS and considered that
his first known attack of MS occurred n the military following his head
trauma.  Subsequent examinations by the DVA, in 1997 and 1999, indicated
the same determinations of when his MS first manifested.

9.  The National Institutes of Health internet site Medlineplus.gov
contains numerous related sites concerning MS.  The sites state that the
basic “rule” for diagnosing MS requires both of the following:  (1)
Objective evidence of at least two areas of myelin loss, or demyelinating
lesions, “separated in time and space.”  This means lesions have occurred
in different places within the brain, spinal cord, or optic nerve at
different points in time and (2) All other diseases that can cause similar
neurologic symptoms have been objectively ruled out.  Until (1) and (2)
have been satisfied, a physician will not be able to make a definite
diagnosis of MS.  The diagnosis of MS can be very difficult.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions and the reason for his request have been
carefully considered.

2.  It appears that medical authorities agree the diagnosis of MS can be
very difficult.  It appears that medical authorities agree the basic “rule”
for diagnosing MS requires both of the following:  (1) Objective evidence
of at least two areas of myelin loss, or demyelinating lesions, “separated
in time and space” and (2) All other diseases that can cause similar
neurologic symptoms have been objectively ruled out.  Until (1) and (2)
have been satisfied, a physician will not be able to make a definite
diagnosis of MS.

3.  Since the applicant's later doctors all appear to agree that the
applicant's eye problem after his 1952 head injury was the first symptom of
MS, and he did not manifest any other symptoms until 1978, it would have
been impossible for his doctors to have diagnosed him with MS in 1952.
There was no evidence of at least two demyelinating lesions occurring in
different places within the brain, spinal cord, or optic nerve at different
points in time in 1952.  While it might (or might not) have been a symptom
of MS, it could not have been diagnosed as MS at that time.

4.  The Army has an interest in promoting the reliability of its medical
records.  Alteration of a diagnosis in those records after the fact may
lead to fundamental questions about the veracity of the records in this
case and in general.  The Secretary’s interest is in ensuring an orderly
system in which a physician makes certain observations and records them
faithfully in the medical records at the time.  It would take an
extraordinary showing for the Board to alter such a diagnosis.  In this
case, the applicant’s physician, in 1952, made a diagnosis in good faith.

5.  At this point in time, the DVA could make a ruling that the applicant's
MS began with his eye problem after his head injury in 1952.  However, the
DVA operates under its own policies and procedures and the Army has no
jurisdiction to compel the DVA to do so.  To make the requested correction
simply to allow the DVA to change its service connection ruling is an
insufficient basis on which to overcome the presumption that the Army's
records are correct.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration at the latest in January 1980; therefore,
the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired in January 1983.  The applicant did not file within the 3-
year statute of limitations; however, he has provided a sufficiently
compelling explanation 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

__jns____  __phm___  __ljo___  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.




                                  __John N. Slone_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON


                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050006412                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051123                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |124.01                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |



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