RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            08 AUGUST 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20050017104


      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             |
|     |Ms. Deyon D. Battle               |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James Anderholm               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Dale DeBruler                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. James Hastie                  |     |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 his previous request that his
disability rating be increased from 10 percent to at least 30 percent.  He
also requests that he be granted his full retirement benefits, based on his
Chronological Statement of Retirement Points; that his latest Urology
Report be reviewed; and that his neurological abnormalities be listed under
Title 38, Code of Federal Regulations.

2.  The applicant states, that the only purpose of the correction to his
records is to enable him to receive his full retirement benefits.  He
states that he cannot believe the mistreatment and neglect of a sergeant
first class who replied to the call of duty for Operation Enduring Freedom
based on semantics of diagnostic codes and percentages.  He questions how
he could have appealed the formal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) without
being notified and whether this Board believes that this was justice.

3.  The applicant provides in support of his application, a copy of his
Chronological Statement of Retirement Points; a Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) Statement in Support of Claim; and VA progress notes dated 13
September 2005.

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
AR20050000108, on 29 September 2005.

2.  On 18 November 2004, the applicant was furnished a Notification of
Eligibility for Retired Pay at Age 60 (20-Year Letter) from the United
States Army Human Resources Command.  The letter informed the applicant
that he has completed the required years of qualifying Reserve service and
that he is eligible for retired pay on application at age 60 in accordance
with Title 10, United States Code, Chapter 1223.  The letter indicates that
his eligibility for retired pay may not be denied or revoked on the basis
of any error, miscalculation, misinformation, or administrative
determination of years of creditable service performed unless it resulted
directly from fraud or misrepresentation on his part.



3.  The VA progress notes dated 13 September 2005, that the applicant has
now submitted in behalf of his application shows that he has a combat
related injury with neck and back problems, with severe damage to the
spine, and that he is also known to have neurogenic bladder.  The VA
urology progress notes indicate that he is wearing diapers; that he has to
change approximately five diapers per day; and that he is recently getting
some strong sensation in his bladder that appears to be regeneration of his
pelvic nerves.  The VA progress notes indicate that the applicant stated
that because of his initial urinary urgency, he had to use about seven
diapers at that time otherwise, he had no complaints.

4.  The applicant's Chronological Statement of Retirement Points indicate
that he has completed 20 years and 2 days of qualifying service for retired
pay.

5.  As previously informed, the Department of Defense Directive, paragraph
1332.39, establishes the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating
Disabilities (VASRD) as the standard for assigning disability percentage
ratings.  The percentage ratings represent, as far as can practicably be
determined, the average impairment in civilian occupational earning
capacity resulting from certain diseases and injuries, and their residual
conditions.  However, not all the general policy provisions of the VASRD
are applicable to the Military Departments.  Many of these policies were
written primarily for the DVA rating boards, and are intended to provide
guidance under laws and policies applicable only to the DVA.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The VA urology progress notes that the applicant has submitted in
support of his request for reconsideration has been noted.  However, as
stated in the Board's previous decision, the applicant's Medical Evaluation
Board (MEB) specifically stated that he met the medical retention standards
for detrusor instability and prostate obstruction.  Also the MEB addendum
specifically stated that the applicant's detrusor instability and prostatic
obstruction did not cause him to fall below retention standards.

2.  In regard to the applicant's request that his neurological
abnormalities be listed under Title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, and
that his PEB Proceedings (DA Form 199) be corrected to reflect a different
VA Code; it is not the function of this Board to rewrite Federal
Regulations to incorporate an individual's illnesses.  The function of this
Board is to correct errors and/or injustices in the military

records of service members and former service members utilizing laws and
regulations that currently exist.  The applicant's DA Form 199 was prepared
by competent authority at the time of his PEB Proceedings.

3.  The VA urology progress notes have been noted.  However, they are
insufficient justification to warrant reversal of the Board's original
decision.  Therefore, there is no basis for granting the portion of his
request regarding an increase of his disability rating from 10 percent to
30 percent.

4.  The applicant’s question as to how he could have appealed the formal
PEB without being notified has also been noted.  However, the records show
that he was provided a copy of the revised PEB proceedings and he submitted
an appeal to the PEB which was denied.  Once the formal PEB denied his
appeal, he submitted an appeal to the United States Army Physical
Disability Agency which was ultimately denied.  There is no indication that
the action taken by the Army in this case was unjust.

5.  However, the available records do show that based on his qualifying
Reserve service, upon application, he is entitled to a 20-year retirement
in accordance with the Notification of Eligibility for Retired Pay at age
60, that was furnished to him on 18 November 2004.  Inasmuch as he is
already entitled to retired pay at age 60, there is no basis for granting
this portion of the applicant's request.

6.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show 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.

7.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____JA__  ____DD_  ___JH  __  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 AR20050000108, dated 29 September
2005.




                                  ____James Anderholm____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050017104                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |20050929                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060808                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |20041118                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 135-18                               |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |RETIREMENT                              |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES         1.  995  |145.0000/PHYSICAL DISABILITY            |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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