RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        5 October 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060001970


      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. Beverly A. Young              |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James Gunlicks                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Michael Flynn                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Scott Faught                  |     |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 her honorable discharge be changed to a
medical retirement.

2.  The applicant states that she made an error when her records were sent
to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).  She states that she checked the
first box instead of the second box which indicates she was fit for duty
when she was not. She states she is on social security disability.  She
completed 15 years of service in the military and she requests retired
disability discharge instead of an honorable discharge.

3.  The applicant provides a statement from her physician; her letter of
acknowledgement of notification of medical unfitness for retention; her
notification of medical unfitness for retention; her Military Leave and
Earnings Statement; her discharge orders from the U.S. Army Reserve; her DA
Form 3349 (Physical Profile); her Chronological Statement of Retirement
Points; and a memorandum indicating the results of an informal Reserve
Component Non-Duty Related PEB.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was born on 29 October 1944.  She was appointed as a
first lieutenant in the Reserve of the Army, Army Nurse Corps, on 21 March
1990.

2.  She was promoted to captain on 20 March 1992 and promoted to major on
16 October 1999.

3.  The applicant was given an Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the
period ending 15 March 2004 which shows she served as a Critical Care Nurse
of the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) section of a U.S. Army Reserve Combat
Support Hospital.  Under Part V (Performance and Potential Evaluation), the
rater placed an “X” in the block “Outstanding Performance, Must Promote.”
The rater commented that the applicant demonstrated professionalism along
with personal dedication in her duties as Officer-In-Charge (OIC) of the
ICU and maintained her clinical competency by attending professional
conferences, workshops and seminars.  The rater also commented that the
applicant had a permanent profile with Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT)
limitations, but she completed her 2-mile walk.   Under Part VII (Senior
Rater), the senior rater placed an “X” in the block “FULLY QUALIFIED” and
commented that the applicant was a capable and dedicated Soldier who could
assume greater responsibilities.

4.  On 30 July 2004, the applicant was placed on permanent profile for
diabetes type II and disc disease in her neck.  The profiling officer
indicated the applicant did not meet retention standards in accordance with
Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3, paragraph 11d and should be medically
discharged or referred to a Non-Duty Related PEB.  She was given a function
limitation of not being assigned to an area where prolonged (greater than 2
weeks) consumption of combat rations was required and alternate APFT.

5.  In a 30 July 2004 memorandum, the applicant was notified that she was
determined to be medically disqualified for continued service in the U.S.
Army Reserve due to her diabetes mellitus in accordance with Army
Regulation
40-501, chapter 3, paragraph 11d.  At that time, she was given the option
to:
(a) request reassignment to the Retired Reserve per Army Regulation 140-10,
chapter 6; (b) request reassignment to the Retired Reserve with early
qualifying of eligibility to receive retired pay at age 60 if she had at
least 15 but less than 20 qualifying years of service for retired pay
purposes; (c) request an Honorable Discharge from the U.S. Army Reserve; or
(d) request a review of her non-duty related medical disqualification by a
PEB.

6.  The applicant acknowledged notification of her medical disqualification
and the options available to her.  She requested an informal PEB to review
her medical records for a final determination of her medical fitness for
retention.

7.  An Informal Reserve Component Non-Duty Related PEB evaluated the
applicant on 12 October 2004 and determined that she was physically fit.
The PEB Proceedings noted the commander indicated the applicant could
perform her duties as required and that her profile indicated a limitation
of no extended consumption of combat rations.  The commander also stated
that
non-deployability was not an unfitting condition.

8.  The PEB recommended that the applicant be referred for case disposition
under Reserve component regulations.  The findings and recommendations of
the PEB were forwarded to the applicant and she was advised to review the
DA Form 199 (PEB Proceedings).  She was instructed to indicate her
concurrence with the PEB findings in Block 13 (Election of Soldier) on page
2
of the DA Form 199.

9.  On 19 October 2004, the applicant acknowledged that she had been
advised of the findings and recommendations of the PEB and had received a
full explanation of the results of the findings and recommendations and
legal rights pertaining to the PEB findings.  She placed a check beside the
option: “I CONCUR WITH THE FINDING OF FIT FOR DUTY.”

10.  The applicant was given an OER for the period ending 15 March 2005
which shows she served as a Critical Care Nurse of the ICU section of a
U.S. Army Reserve Combat Support Hospital.  Under Part V, the rater placed
an “X” in the block “Satisfactory Performance, Promote.”  The rater
commented that the applicant maintained her clinical competency by
attending professional conferences and actively participates in the
American Nurses Association Legislative issues.  The rater also commented
the applicant was in the process of her mandatory removal date and that no
APFT was taken during this rating period due to a medical profile.  The
applicant’s MRD was indicated as 31 March 2005.  Under Part VII, the senior
rater placed an “X” in the block “FULLY QUALIFIED” and commented that the
applicant was a capable and dedicated Soldier who could assume greater
responsibilities.

11.  The applicant was honorably discharged from the U.S. Army Reserve on
31 July 2005 under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-178 upon reaching
her mandatory removal date (which was 31 March 2005 when she turned
age 60).

12.  Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of
Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of
physical disability.  Paragraph 8-6 states that, when a commander or other
proper authority believes that a Soldier not on extended active duty is
unable to perform the duties of his or her grade or rank because of
physical disability, the commander will refer the Soldier for medical
evaluation according to Army Regulation 40-501.  In each case, it is
necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present
with the requirements of the duties the Soldier reasonably may be expected
to perform because of his or her office, grade, or rank.  It states that a
lack of special skills in demand does not, in itself, establish eligibility
for disability separation or retirement.  Although the ability of a Soldier
to reasonably perform his or her duties in all geographic locations under
all conceivable circumstances is a key to maintaining an effective and fit
force, this criterion will not serve as the sole basis for a finding of
unfitness.  It states that disability compensation is not an entitlement
acquired by reason of
service-incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to Soldiers
whose service
is interrupted and they can longer continue to reasonably perform because
of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service.

13.  In August 1998, the Office of the Chief, Army Reserve (OCAR)
established a process to refer Soldiers of the Reserve Component who are
pending separation for medical disqualification into the Disability
Evaluation System.  The process was designed to give the Soldier with a non-
duty related impairment the option of requesting a PEB solely for the
purpose of a fitness determination but not a determination of eligibility
for disability benefits.  OCAR noted that it is Department of Defense
policy that Reserve Component members pending separation for medical
disqualification are entitled to a fitness determination by each Service's
PEB when requested by the Soldier.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was placed on permanent
profile in July 2004.  Her OER prior to her profile and subsequent to her
profile reflect she was fully capable of performing her duties as a
Critical Care Nurse.

2.  The applicant’s medical records were reviewed and it was determined
that her medical condition disqualified her for retention in the U.S. Army
Reserve.  At that time, she was given the option to be transferred to the
Retired Reserve, if eligible; to be discharged from the Army Reserve with
an Honorable Discharge; or considered by a Non-Duty Related PEB.  She
requested a Non-Duty Related PEB.

3.  The PEB found the applicant fit for duty.  She contends she erred when
she concurred with the finding of being fit for duty.  However, there is
insufficient evidence to show her condition prevented her from performing
her duties.

4.  The preponderance of evidence shows that the applicant’s medical
condition did not render her medically unfit.  Therefore, there is no basis
for changing her honorable discharge to a medical retirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

JG______  MF______  SF______  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.




                                  James Gunlicks________
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060001970                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061005                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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