RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  15 April 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080001133 


	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.




Director



Analyst
      The following members, a quorum, were present:


M

Chairperson

M

Member

M

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, correction of her records to show that she was medically retired instead of separated.

2.  The applicant states that she was diagnosed with Presumed Ocular Histoplasmosis Syndrome (POHS) in October 2003 while on active duty.  She was transferred to and served in a Reserve unit where her chronic history of blindness continued until she could no longer perform her military police (MP) duties and could not qualify with her individual weapon, and was subsequently transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR).  She further states that she was never referred to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) during her active duty or USAR service.  

3.  The applicant provided the following documentary evidence in support of her application:

	a.  DA Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), dated 17 March 2004. 

	b.  Letter, dated 31 October 2007, Ophthalmology, Chief Resident, Madigan Army Medical Center, Fort Lewis, Washington.   

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's records show that she enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 17 May 2000.  She was ordered to initial active duty for training on 2 June 2000, completed basic combat and advanced individual training, and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 95B (Military Police).  She was honorably separated on 6 October 2000 and transferred to her USAR unit, the 377th Military Police Detachment, Bloomington, Indiana.

2.  On 2 May 2001, she was reassigned to the 2122nd Garrison Support Unit (GSU), Fort Lewis, Washington, a USAR Troop Program Unit (TPU).

3.  On 28 September 2001, she was ordered to active duty for unknown reasons and was honorably separated on 31 October 2002 and reverted back to her USAR status. 

4.  On 14 March 2003, she was ordered to active duty as a member of her Reserve unit in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.  However, her records do not reveal that she served in an imminent danger pay area.  She was honorably released from active duty on 17 March 2004 and reverted back to USAR status.

5.  On 14 November 2006, Headquarters, 70th Regional Readiness Command, Seattle, Washington, published Orders 06-318-00025, releasing the applicant from her assignment to the 2122nd GSU, Fort Lewis, Washington, and assigning her to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement), effective 14 November 2006, for voluntary reasons.  

6.  On 26 March 2008, Army Human Resources Command, St. Louis, Missouri, published Orders C-03-805793, reassigning the applicant from the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) to the 301st Combat Support Brigade, Fort Lewis, Washington, effective 25 March 2008.

7.  The applicant provided a statement, dated 31 October 2007, authenticated by a military medical officer, the Chief Resident, Ophthalmology, Madigan Army Medical Center, Fort Lewis, Washington.  The Chief Resident states that the applicant has been a patient since October 2003 and that while on active duty, she developed neuroretinits in the right eye.  She subsequently developed a chorodial neovascular membrane in the right eye and has permanent loss of vision in the right eye due to scar formation from the neovascular membrane.  He further adds that the applicant will need long term follow up and care and regular monitoring by Ophthalmology and that regular follow up is needed due to an increased risk of developing a neovascular membrane of the left eye from this condition.

8.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), governs the evaluation for physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit for their military duties because of physical disability.  This regulation applies to the Active Army, the Army National Guard and the U.S. Army Reserve.  Paragraph 3-2b of this regulation provides for retirement or separation from active service.  This provision of regulation 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 no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service.  The regulation also states that, when a Soldier is being processed for separation or retirement for reasons other than physical disability, continued performance of assigned duty commensurate with his or her rank or grade until the Soldier is scheduled for separation or retirement creates a presumption that the soldier is fit.


9.  Chapter 61, Title 10, U.S. Code provides the Secretaries of the Military Departments with authority to retire or discharge a member if they find the member unfit to perform military duties because of physical disability.  The US Army Physical Disability Agency, under the operational control of the Commander, US Army Human Resources Command (USAHRC), Alexandria, VA, is responsible for operating the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) and executes Secretary of the Army decision-making authority as directed by Congress in Chapter 61, 10 USC, and in accordance with Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 1332.18 and Army Regulation 635-40.  
Soldiers enter the PDES four ways:  

	a.  Referral by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).  When a Soldier has received maximum benefit of medical treatment for a condition that may render the Soldier unfit for further military service, the medical treatment facility (MTF) conducts a MEB to determine whether the Soldier meets the medical retention standards of AR 40-501, chapter 3.  If the Soldier does not meet medical retention standards, he or she is referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) to determine physical fitness under the policies and procedures of AR 635-40; 

	b.  Referral by the MOS/Medical Retention Board (MMRB).  The MMRB is an administrative screening board the chain of command uses to evaluate the ability of Soldiers with permanent 3 or 4 medical profiles to physically perform in a worldwide field environment in their primary military occupation specialty.  Referral to a MEB/PEB is one of the actions the MMRB Convening Authority may direct; 

	c.  Referral as the result of a fitness for duty medical examination.  When a commander believes a Soldier is unable to perform MOS-related duties due to a medical condition, the commander may refer the Soldier to the MTF for evaluation.  If evaluation results in a MEB, and the MEB determines that the Soldier does not meet medical retention standards, the Soldier is referred to a PEB; and 

	d.  Referral as a result of HQDA action.  The Commander, US Army Human Resources Command (USAHRC), upon recommendation of The Surgeon General, may refer a Soldier to the responsible MTF for medical evaluation as described in (3) above.  USAHRC also directs referral to a PEB when it disapproves the MMRB recommendation to reclassify a Soldier.




DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that she should be medically retired instead of separated.

2.  The available evidence shows the applicant was fully qualified for enlistment.  She subsequently served on active duty on multiple occasions and was transferred among various USAR units with no indication that she was medically disqualified from performing the duties associated with her MOS and required separation processing through medical channels.

3.  Referral to the PDES is done through an established process.  There is no evidence in the applicant's records to indicate that she had a physical disability that warranted processing through the MEB or PEB.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant has not established a basis for the relief requested.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__tsk___  __jlp___  __dwt___  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.




							TSK
      ______________________
                CHAIRPERSON


ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080001133



5


DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
1901 SOUTH BELL STREET 2ND FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA  22202-4508