RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        12 September 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050017285


      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. Wanda L. Waller               |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Allen Raub                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Linda Barker                  |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Qawiy Sabree                  |     |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 he be granted active duty
credit and pay for the period 12 November 2003 through 14 August 2004.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he should not have been released
from active duty on 11 November 2003 but should have been retained on
active duty to receive medical care and disability processing.  He contends
that during his separation examination the doctor discovered a high amount
of protein in his urine and that he was referred to another doctor for a
follow-up which in turn sent him to a kidney specialist.  It was later
discovered that he had focal segmental glomerulosclerosis with chronic
renal deficiency.  He contends that his unit discharged him from active
duty prior to finding out the seriousness of his medical condition.  He
states that it took one year with no military pay until his paperwork was
processed and sent to the medical board.  He was later placed on the
Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) and began receiving compensation.

3.  The applicant provides five enclosures outlined on his 26 November 2005
statement.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was ordered to active duty on 21 January 2003 in support
of Operation Enduring Freedom.  He apparently performed duties in his
primary military occupational specialty (MOS) of 44B20 (metal worker).  On
11 November 2003, he was released from active duty.  His discharge orders
show he was entitled to 120 days of transitional healthcare benefits.

2.  There is no evidence of record which shows the applicant requested to
remain on active duty prior to his release from active duty.

3.  There is no evidence or record which shows the applicant was disabled
in the line of duty from injury, illness, or disease prior to his release
from active duty.

4.  The applicant provided a letter, dated 16 December 2003, from the staff
nephrologist at the Naval Medical Center in Portsmouth, Virginia.  This
letter states that the applicant was demobilized on 12 November 2003, that
during his out processing examination he was noted to have proteinuria and
mild renal insufficiency, and that he was referred to that department for
further evaluation with 120 days of continued eligibility for care under
TriCare coverage.  Further testing was recommended.  The letter also
stated, “The treatment for this condition may require more than the allowed
120 days of [TriCare] eligibility.  Please consider (the applicant) for an
extension of his benefits at this time for further care as this condition
occurred while on Active Duty.”

5.  On 4 February 2004, the applicant was diagnosed by a Medical Evaluation
Board (MEB) with focal segmental glomerulosclerosis and mild renal
insufficiency.  The MEB recommended referral to the U.S. Army Reviewing
Authority for a fitness for duty determination.  On 7 May 2004, a Physical
Evaluation Board (PEB) found the applicant physically unfit due to focal
segmental glomerulosclerosis with mild renal insufficiency.  The PEB placed
the applicant on the TDRL effective 15 August 2004 with a disability rating
of
30 percent.

6.  In the processing of his case, an advisory opinion was prepared by the
Deputy Commander, U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency.  The advisory
opinion pointed out that at the time of the applicant’s release from active
duty there was only one test result that suggested that further testing
[should] be done, and that there were no physical findings or
manifestations of dysfunction at that time, nor was there any disability
evaluation begun or contemplated.  Further, the applicant was not
hospitalized.  The opinion stated that the
16 December 2003 letter from the doctor was ineffective to keep the
applicant on active duty as he had been demobilized over 30 days earlier
and even at that time the doctor did not articulate any need for immediate
treatment or medical care.  He simply stated that further tests were
needed.  The applicant received those tests and he was properly processed
by the MEB and PEB systems.

7.  A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for
comment.  The applicant responded on 17 August 2006.  In summary, he stated
that he informed his unit of the findings of his out processing physical
examination and told them that something needed to be done until he found
out how serious his condition was and nothing was done.  He pointed out
that after the kidney specialist found out he was not on active duty
because his unit ignored his request to remain on active duty, the doctor
requested in a letter that he be placed back on active duty or medical hold
until the matter was resolved, and still no action was taken.  He contends
that he should not have been released from active duty when the Army/his
unit found out he was diagnosed with focal segmental glomerulosclerosis and
mild renal insufficiency and that he should have immediately been placed
back on active duty, receiving pay while on medical hold.

8.  Army Regulation 135-381 (Incapacitation of Reserve Component Soldiers)
applies to Soldiers of the U. S. Army Reserve and the Army National Guard
of the United States, including those serving on active duty under the
provisions of Title 10.  Paragraph 7-2a states that Soldiers who incur or
aggravate an injury, illness, or disease while on orders for more than 30
days may elect to extend on active duty until treatment is completed.
Chapter 2 states that Reserve Component (RC) Soldiers who incur or
aggravate an injury, illness, or disease while participating in training
may be treated in a medical treatment facility or be provided medical care
elsewhere at Government expense.  Soldiers are authorized follow up medical
care for injury, illness, or disease incurred or aggravated in line of duty
after completion of active or inactive duty training.

9.  An Office of the Army Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 memorandum dated
     16 September 2002 states that [previously issued] procedural guidance
for RC Soldiers on active duty medical extension (ADME) is extended until
it can be included in Army Regulation 135-XX.  RC Soldiers may be retained
on active duty when the injury or illness was occurred in the line of duty
and prevents the Soldier from performing his or her normal military duty.
The request will consist of the member's consent to remain on active duty,
the physician's statement that medical treatment is required for more than
30 days, the LOD determination, and a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action)
signed by the commander.

10.  The Army Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1 Procedural Guidance for RC
Soldiers on ADME references Title 32, USC.  The scope of this guidance
includes all RC Soldiers who are on active duty orders or on inactive duty
training and require medical treatment/evaluation for 30 days or more
(inpatient or outpatient), and fall under the rules, regulations, and
specified entitlements for active duty personnel.  This guidance applies to
all RC Soldiers when it is determined that they are unable to perform
normal military duties in their MOS/area of concentration by a military
medical authority.

11.  Around February 2004, the Army determined that RC Soldiers injured in
the line of duty while on IDT or on a non-mobilization active duty status
should not be treated the same as Soldiers injured in the line of duty
while mobilized for a contingency operation.  Around February 2005, policy
was formalized splitting ADME for Soldiers injured in the line of duty
while on IDT or on a non-mobilization active duty status and who are unable
to perform normal military duties in their MOS/area of concentration, and
MRP (Medical Retention Processing) for Soldiers injured in the line of duty
while mobilized for a contingency operation and who are in need of medical
evaluation, treatment, and disposition.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requested that he be granted active duty credit and pay
for the period 12 November 2003, when he was released from active duty,
through       14 August 2004, when he was placed on the TDRL.
2.  At the time of the applicant’s release from active duty, the only
policy in effect that could have allowed him to remain on active duty for
medical reasons was ADME.  However, ADME was only for RC Soldiers who
incurred an injury in the line of duty and who were determined to be unable
to perform normal military duties in their normal MOS.  The applicant was
released from active duty on     11 November 2003, and there is no evidence
of record to show he was unable to perform duty as a 44B20 at that time.


3.  Army Regulation 135-381 stated that Soldiers who incurred or aggravated
an injury, illness, or disease while on orders for more than 30 days could
elect to extend on active duty until treatment is completed; however, the
applicant was not undergoing any treatment at that time.  Therefore, the
guidance under the provisions of this regulation were not applicable,
either.

4.  The applicant contended, in his rebuttal to the advisory opinion, that
after the kidney specialist found out he was not on active duty the doctor
requested that he be placed back on active duty.  If the applicant is
referring to the 16 December 2003 letter from the staff nephrologist at the
Naval Medical Center in Portsmouth, Virginia, that letter only stated that
treatment for the applicant’s condition could require more than the allowed
120 days of [TriCare] eligibility and to please consider the applicant for
an extension of his benefits.

5.  The applicant could have been eligible for retention on active duty
under the MRP program; however, policy for this program was not finalized
until around February 2005, after the applicant had been placed on the
TDRL.

6.  Regrettably, the applicant did not fall under a program that would have
authorized his retention on active duty.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

AR______  LB_____  __QS___  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.




                                  ___Allen Raub___________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050017285                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060912                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.0200                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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