RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        3 May 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060011428


      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. Gerard W. Schwartz            |     |Acting Director      |
|     |Ms. Loretta D. Gulley             |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Flynn              |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Rose M. Lys                   |     |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 her physical evaluation (PEB)
rating be increased.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that her disability should have been
rated at a higher percentage since she has chronic headaches and Chronic
Mylogenous
Leukemia (CML) which are still under treatment.  The applicant also states,
in effect, that she is still undergoing chemotherapy and is being treated
with Imatinib, resulting in chronic side effects.  Finally, she states that
the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) failed to consider her chronic daily
headaches in the rating decision.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of her Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), a
copy of her Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), a coy of orders discharging
her from United States Army Reserve, a memorandum subject:  appeal of PEB
proceedings, and copies of her service medical records.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The evidence of record shows that on 18 August 2004, the applicant
enlisted in the United States Army Reserve serving in Military Occupational
Specialty (MOS) 92G (Cook).  On 16 August 2005, the applicant’s unit was
mobilized and deployed to Afghanistan.  The highest grade she held was
sergeant (SGT), pay grade (E-5).

2.  A DA Form 2173 (Statement of Medical and Duty Status), dated 9 August
2005, shows the applicant reported to and was admitted to the Bagram,
Afghanistan Treatment Facility complaining of pain in her abdomen and
inability to move.  She was diagnosed with Thrombocytosis and Leukocytosis,
Amemia, and Recutus Muscle Hematoma.

3.  On an undisclosed date the applicant was transferred to the Landstuhl
Regional Hospital in Germany and on 2 August 2005 she was transferred to
the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

4.  On 31 October 2005, the applicant underwent a Medical Evaluation Board
(MEB) for Anxiety Disorder due to a General Medical Condition (CML),
Chronic Myelogenous Leukemia, chronic phase, and Chronic Daily Headaches.
The MEB proceedings indicated the applicant has been on therapy with
Imatinib since 11 August 2005.  The MEB recommended the applicant be
referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and she concurred with the
findings and recommendations of that board.

5.  On 23 May 2006, a PEB found that the applicant was physically unfit due
to CML that was diagnosed in August 2005 and in remission.  The applicant
was treated with chemotherapy with good response.  She remained on therapy
with Imatinib and had chronic side effects of therapy to include fatigue
and intermittent gastrointestinal upset.  The applicant was rated under the
Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD)
code 7716 and granted a 10% disability rating.  The applicant was rated at
0% under VASRD codes 5399 and 5323 for chronic daily tension headaches and
recommended for separation with severance pay.

6.  The applicant did not concur with the findings and recommendations made
by the PEB.  The applicant did not submit a copy of her rebuttal with this
application.

7.  The PEB reviewed the applicant's rebuttal on 19 June 2006.  After
careful consideration, the PEB affirmed the decision of the formal hearing
that found the applicant unfit with a disability rating of 10 percent since
no new evidence or diagnosis was provided.  The PEB added the applicant’s
headaches as part of her service connection.  The PEB considered the fact
that the applicant's rebuttal contained no objective medical information
which would warrant any change to her PEB rating.  The PEB believed the
applicant’s case was properly evaluated in accordance with AR 635-40 and
current US Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) policies.  Finally, the
PEB recommended that the applicant apply to the Department of Veterans
Affairs (DVA).  The PEB forwarded the applicant’s case file to the USAPDA
for final processing.

8.  On 14 September 2006, the applicant was honorably discharged under the
provisions of AR 135-178.

9.  On 27 February 2007, the Chief, Operations Division, USAPDA, advised
the applicant that after a review of her entire case, the Agency concluded
that her case was properly adjudicated by the PEB.  The Chief stated that
the PEB correctly applied the rules that govern the Physical Disability
Evaluation System (PDES) in making its determination.  The findings and
recommendations of the PEB were supported by substantial evidence;
therefore, they were affirmed.  The applicant was informed that she may be
eligible for medical care through the DVA, if they determine that her
illness or injury was service-connected.  Furthermore, she may apply for a
disability rating through the DVA for any of those service-connected
illnesses or injuries.  The DOD PDES, however, operating under a different
set of laws than the DVA, may only compensate Soldiers for any service-
connected or permanently aggravated condition that caused their separation
and only for the degree of impairment at the time of their separation.

10.  On 12 March 2007, the applicant was provided a copy of the USAPDA
advisory opinion in order to have the opportunity to reply to its contents.
 The applicant did not respond.

11.  Army Regulation (AR) 635-40 establishes the Army physical disability
evaluation system and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures
that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical
disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or
rating.  It provides for medical evaluation boards, which are convened to
document a Soldier's medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is
affected by the Soldier's status.  A decision is made as to the Soldier's
medical qualifications for retention based on the criteria in AR 40-501
(Standards of Physical Fitness), chapter 3.  If the MEB determines the
Soldier does not meet retention standards, the board will recommend
referral of the Soldier to a PEB.

12.  Title 10, United States 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 contends that her physical disability rating for chronic
headaches and CML should be increased because she is still undergoing daily
treatment.

2.  The medical evidence of record supports the determination that the
applicant's unfitting condition was properly diagnosed and that her
disability was properly rated in accordance with the VASRD.  Her separation
with severance pay was in compliance with law and regulation.  The
applicant rebutted the PEB rating decision that resulted in her headaches
being service connect but no rating was awarded nor did it change the 10
percent disability rating for the CML.

3.  The applicant has not provided sufficient documentation to support her
contention that the evaluation and the rating rendered by the PEB were
incorrect. Therefore, she is not entitled to change in her disability
rating.
4.  The applicant is advised that her medical condition has been documented
as having occurred on active duty and she is, therefore, entitled to
treatment for that condition at her nearest Department of Veterans Affairs
(DVA) hospital.  She is also entitled to a disability rating from the DVA
with possible benefits.  She should contact her local DVA office to file a
claim.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___RTD__  ___MJF _  ___RML_  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.




                                  ___Richard T. Dunbar__
                                 CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060011428                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/05/03                              |
|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. Schwartz                            |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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