RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        19 July 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050012690


      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. Edmund P. Mercanti            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Vick                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Barbara J. Ellis              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Donald L. Lewy                |     |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 reconsideration of the Board’s denial of his
request to correct his records to show that he was placed on the Retired
List for physical unfitness.

2.  The applicant states that his new evidence proves his contentions.  He
continues that his caseworker during his Medical Evaluation Board (MEB)
lied to him concerning addenda to his MEB, which resulted in his signing
(agreeing with) the MEB.  He also disputes the accuracy of several entries
in the ABCMR’s previous consideration.

3.  The applicant provides a memorandum from a lieutenant colonel who is
the Fort Drum, New York, Medical Hold Physician.  It that memorandum the
physician stated that he treated the applicant for right knee pain and
dysfunction, lower back pain, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number
AR20040008441 on 2 June 2005.

2.  In the Board’s previous consideration, it noted that:

      a.  an MEB Addendum was prepared by orthopedic service on 13 May
2004.  That addendum addressed the applicant's right knee problem.

      b.   the applicant was determined physically unfit due to PTSD and
chronic right knee pain.

      c.  on 21 July 2004, the applicant had signed the DA Form 199
concurring with the findings and recommendation of the informal PEB;
however, he submitted a statement dated 22 July 2004 arguing that his other
medical conditions (hearing in his right ear and left knee pain) were not
added to his issues.  He also indicated that his left knee was currently
being treated with medication and that he elected to have the operation at
a future date.



      d.  on 26 August 2004, the applicant was discharged by reason of
physical disability with severance pay.

      e.  on 13 February 2005, an MRI of the applicant's lumbar spine
revealed the L5 – S1 disc was desiccated demonstrating a mild degree of
disc space narrowing.

4.  The statement from the Fort Drum, New York, Medical Hold Physician is
new evidence and requires that the Board reconsider the applicant’s case.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The memorandum from the Fort Drum, New York, Medical Hold Physician
confirms that the applicant was treated for right knee pain and
dysfunction, lower back pain, and PTSD.

2.  The applicant was determined physically unfit due to PTSD and right
knee pain and dysfunction, which resulted in his discharge with severance
pay.  The applicant was not diagnosed with back pain until after his
discharge.  These facts were all noted during the Board’s previous
consideration.

3.  The applicant has not shown that the ratings he was assigned for his
right knee pain and PTSD were improper.  As for his back pain, he has now
submitted evidence that he was treated for back pain prior to his
discharge.  However, he has not submitted any evidence to show that the
condition was determined to be medically disqualifying or physically
unfitting while he was on active duty.  As such, the applicant has not
shown that he should have been rated for back pain.

4.  The fact that the applicant had addenda added to his MEB and that he
responded to his informal PEB with additional matters for the PEB to
consider shows that the applicant was conversant with his rights within the
Disability Evaluation System.  As such, the Board does not accept the
applicant’s statement that his caseworker lied to him concerning addenda to
his MEB, which resulted in his signing the MEB.

5.  The applicant has also asked for the award of the Purple Heart, which
is a new request.  This request will be considered under a different docket
number in another Record of Proceedings.




BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___jev___  ____bje__  ___dll___  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 to amend the decision of
the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20040008441 on 2 June 2005.




                                  _________James E. Vick_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050012690                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |200060719                               |
|DATE BOARDED            |YYYYMMDD                                |
|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.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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