RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        12 September 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060002530


      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. Allen L. Raub                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Linda M. Barker               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Qawiy A. 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 his disability rating be
increased.

2.  The applicant states he was discharged with a 10 percent disability
rating, but the medical board did not include other injuries and conditions
listed in his medical records.  Those documented injuries/conditions would
have been an important part in determining his disability rating and also
in determining that they were service-connected injuries.  Furthermore, he
was not allowed time to delay his separation in order to submit other
medical records.  In addition, his unit did not support him in properly
processing his appeal of the 10 percent rating.

3.  The applicant provides copies of his service medical records and a
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  After having had prior service in the Regular Air Force, Air National
Guard, and Army National Guard, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army
on 26 April 2000.  He enlisted for training in military occupational
specialty (MOS) 91P (Radiology Specialist).

2.  The applicant failed radiology training and was sent to Fort Sill for
training in MOS 13F (Fire Support Specialist).  He did not want to attend
artillery training, he became depressed, and he was sent to the Oklahoma
Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services for evaluation and
treatment.  He was discharged with diagnoses of adjustment disorder with
depressed mood; and sarcoidosis (an inflammation of any organ of the body)
with nodes and enlarged liver and spleen.

3.  The applicant subsequently attended and completed training in MOS 13F.
He shortly thereafter attended and completed training in MOS 75B (Personnel
Administration Specialist, later converted to MOS 42A (Human Resources
Specialist)) at Fort Jackson, SC.

4.  A review of the applicant’s service medical records show he was treated
for multiple conditions including lymphadenopathy, hepatosplenomegaly,
fatigue, headaches, blurred vision, myalgias, arthralgias, knee pain, elbow
pain, heel pain, and back pain.

5.  On 6 September 2000, the applicant was given a temporary physical
profile after having abdominal surgery.  On 24 January 2001, he was given a
temporary physical profile for an LCL (lateral collateral ligament)
strain/tear in the left knee.  On 26 March 2002, he was given a temporary
physical profile for left anterior knee pain.

6.  On 15 August 2002, the applicant was given a permanent physical profile
(112111) for chronic knee pain with stress fractures.  The only assignment
limitation he was given was to take the alternate Army Physical Fitness
Test.

7.  On 14 October 2003, the applicant was given a temporary physical
profile for sarcoidosis/musculoskeletal pain.  On 1 December 2003, he was
given a temporary profile for back and knee pain.

8.  On 18 February 2004, the applicant was given a permanent physical
profile (112111) for sarcoidosis/musculoskeletal pain/back pain.

9.  The applicant was apparently given a temporary (223111) physical
profile for sarcoidosis/chronic low back pain.  On 2 May 2005, that
temporary profile was extended.

10.  The applicant’s Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Narrative Summary
evaluated the applicant for low back pain and plantar fasciitis (the tissue
along the bottom of the foot that connects the heel to the toes and causes
heel pain).  It noted that the applicant reported a gradual onset of back
pain beginning in 2002, when he was treated conservatively.  An MRI
(magnetic resonance imaging) revealed degenerative disc disease.  He was
sent to back class and physical therapy and treated with heat and
stretching exercises and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatories.  He did not have
any improvement in his back pain.  He was not a surgical candidate and
reached the full benefit of conservative therapy.  He occasionally had pain
down the side of his leg but had no complaints of numbness or tingling and
no loss of bowel or bladder function.

11.  The Narrative Summary noted that the applicant was told in 2001 that
he had stress fractures in his heel.  A bone scan in January 2005 revealed
mild to moderate reactive changes in the plantar area suggestive of plantar
fasciitis rather than fractures.  He rated his pain as zero [on a 10 point
scale] at rest but aggravated to a 5 with prolonged standing, walking, and
marching.  It also noted that he was diagnosed with sarcoidosis in
September 2000.  His treatments for sarcoidosis included Prednisone and
Plaquenil.  He had periodic exacerbations of musculoskeletal joint problems
in his knee and elbow but no complaints of pulmonary or other symptoms.  He
was currently not receiving treatment and he denied any current problems.
The Narrative Summary noted he had internal hemorrhoids (for which he took
Percocet) and had a biopsy of lymph nodes and bone marrow in September
2004.

12.  On 14 July 2005, an MEB referred the applicant to a Physical
Evaluation Board (PEB) for diagnoses of low back pain (L4-S1) degenerative
disc disease, slight/intermittent; and plantar fasciitis
(slight/intermittent).  On 26 July 2005, the applicant agreed with the
MEB’s findings and recommendation.

13.  On 2 August 2005, an informal PEB found the applicant to be unfit due
to low back pain, with disc desiccation at L4-L5 and L5-S1, and with a
broad bulge at L4-L5, without neurologic abnormality; thoracolumbar forward
flexion was      66 degrees with a combined range of motion of 157 degrees
(10 percent); and plantar fasciitis, bilateral, without neuorolgic
abnormality, and with pain rated as slight (zero percent).  The PEB
recommended his separation with severance pay. On 4 August 2005, the
applicant concurred with the findings of the informal PEB and waived a
formal hearing of his case.

14.  On 7 September 2005, the applicant was separated with severance pay
due to disability.

15.  On 30 December 2005, the VA granted the applicant service connection
for sarcoidosis, hemorrhoids, esophageal erosion, and degenerative disc
disease (all rated at zero percent).  Service connection was denied for
bilateral plantar fasciitis, left knee pain, and left elbow pain.  The
Rating Decision noted that, before service connection can be granted, a
disability which began in service must be considered “chronic.”  The Rating
Decision acknowledged the applicant had been treated for left knee pain,
bilateral plantar fasciitis, and left elbow pain; however, the VA
determined that those conditions did not result in a demonstrable
disability at that time (i.e., the time of the VA evaluation).

16.  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.  The unfitness is of such a degree that a Soldier is
unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating in such a
way as to reasonably fulfill the purposes of his employment on active duty.
 It states that there is no legal requirement in arriving at the rated
degree of incapacity to rate a physical condition which is not in itself
considered disqualifying for military service when a Soldier is found unfit
because of another condition that is disqualifying.  Only the unfitting
conditions or defects and those which contribute to unfitness will be
considered in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity warranting
retirement or separation for disability.

17.  Title 38, U. S. Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the VA to award
compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by
active military service.

18.  Title 10, U. S. Code, section 1203, provides for the physical
disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years service and a
disability rated at less than 30 percent.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that the medical board did not include other
injuries and conditions listed in his medical records has been considered.
However, there is no evidence to show that any conditions other than
(primarily) low back pain) and (secondarily) plantar fasciitis rendered him
unfit for duty.  Although he was given permanent profiles for left knee
pain and sarcoidosis, it appears he was never given a permanent “3”physical
profile for any condition.  The MEB Narrative Summary concerned primarily
his low back pain and secondarily his plantar fasciitis (with the pain for
that condition resolving itself at rest).

2.  The applicant concurred with the findings of the MEB.  There is no
evidence to show that he challenged the findings that no other conditions
rendered him unfit.

3.  The applicant provides no evidence to show his unit did not support him
in properly processing his appeal of the 10 percent rating.  He was aware
that the informal PEB had recommended he be separated with a 10 percent
disability rating, yet, again, the evidence of record shows that he
concurred with the findings of the informal PEB and did not demand a formal
hearing.

4.  The Army’s rating was dependent on the severity of the unfitting
conditions at the time of the applicant’s separation.  There was no legal
requirement to rate a physical condition which was not in itself considered
disqualifying for military service even though he was found unfit because
of another condition that was disqualifying.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__alr___  __lmb___  __qas___  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 L. Raub_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060002530                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060912                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |108.01                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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