RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  20 March 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070013719 


	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.  


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Mr. Michael L. Engle

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Ms. Linda D. Simmons

Chairperson

Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast

Member

Mr. Donald L. Lewy

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 correction of his Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) findings and recommendations.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that all of his medical conditions were not evaluated by the disability evaluation process.  His evidence discusses his seizure disorder, back pain, depression and anxiety.

3.  The applicant provides copies of subsequent medical evaluations done by a private doctor and by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).  

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 22 February 1982, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B1O (Infantryman).  He served through a series of enlistments and attained the rank of sergeant, pay grade E-5 on 21 June 1984.

2.  On 16 April 1990, the applicant was discharged with an honorable characterization of service.  He had completed 8 years, 1 month, and 25 days of creditable active service.

3.  On 5 February 2004, the applicant enlisted in the Tennessee Army National Guard in the rank of sergeant, pay grade E-5.  

4.  On 14 June 2004, the applicant was ordered to active duty in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom III, for duty in MOS 88M (Motor Transport Operator).

5.  On 11 July 2006, a MEB convened to evaluate the medical condition of the applicant.  It found that he had the following medical conditions: cervical spondylosis (degenerative arthritis)(medically unacceptable), lumbago (back pain)(medically unacceptable), seizure disorder, remote history of cerebrovascular accident (stroke) with no residual effects, history of heat injury and heat stroke with no residual effects, migraine headaches, atypical chest pain, hypertension, and benign prostatic hyperplasia.  The MEB recommended that he be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for evaluation of the cervical spondylosis and lumbago.  The applicant indicated that he did not desire to continue on active duty.  The findings and recommendation of the MEB were approved.  The applicant did not agree with the MEB findings and recommendation and appealed.  In his appeal, he stated that when referred for chiropractic and physical therapy, the chiropractor refused to provide any care because it would do more harm than good.  The therapist also refused to continue any treatment after the first session resulted in pain to his left arm and tingling in his hand.  The applicant also took exception to the MEB statement that he was using Topomax. He contended that he was using Dilantin.  He further contended in his appeal that he suffered from fatigue, tremors, dizziness, and had difficulty maintaining a normal body temperature.  He asked that these conditions be made a part of the MEB.  His appeal was considered and the original findings and recommendation were confirmed.

6.  On 18 August 2006, a PEB convened to evaluate the applicant’s medical condition.  It found that he suffered from cervical spondylosis and lumbago.  The PEB found the applicant to be physically unfit and recommended a combined disability rating of zero percent, and that he be separated with severance pay, if otherwise qualified.  The applicant did not concur.  A written appeal was not attached to the proceedings.  The PEB was approved on 12 September 2006.

7.   In a memorandum dated 18 September 2006, the United States Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) noted the applicant’s disagreement with the findings of the PEB. The USAPDA reviewed the entire case and concluded that his case had been properly adjudicated by the PEB.  It advised the applicant that he may be eligible for medical care through the VA.  

8.  On 25 September 2006, the applicant was discharged due to physical disability.  He received severance pay.  He had completed 10 years, 5 months, and 15 days of creditable military service.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The available evidence clearly shows that the applicant was medically disabled and was evaluated by an MEB and PEB.  The MEB found only two conditions medically unacceptable and referred him to the PEB.  The PEB found him unfit for military service and recommended separation with a zero percent disability rating.  The applicant appealed the findings and recommendation.  The USAPDA reviewed the entire case, including the applicant’s appeal.  It confirmed the findings and recommendation.  Therefore, he was discharged with severance pay.

2.  The applicant contended that the MEB did not evaluate all of his medical conditions and therefore rendered an incorrect rating decision.  The evidence supports his contention that the MEB did not consider depression and anxiety. However, the applicant did not mention either of these conditions in his appeal and there is no evidence showing that he suffered from these conditions at the time of his MEB.  The applicant’s seizure disorder and back pain were evaluated by the MEB.

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

4.  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

_LDS ___  __DLL___  __ECP__  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.





_      Linda D. Simmons ___
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
YYYYMMDD
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.