BOARD DATE:	  18 January 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110004903 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that her honorable discharge due to not meeting retention standards be changed to show she was medically discharged or retired by reason of physical disability.

2.  The applicant states that while serving on active duty for special work with the North Carolina Army National Guard (NCARNG) she was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus in February 2008.  She goes on to state she was discharged because it is an automatic disqualification for retention in the NCARNG; however, had she not been diagnosed she would still be serving in the NCARNG.  She also states that she was not afforded processing through the Physical Disability Evaluation System at the time and believes that she should have been medically retired instead of being discharged.

3.  The applicant provides copies of:

* her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) dated 25 January 2009
* orders transferring her to the Retired Reserve
* her Notification of Medical Disqualification for Retention and her election sheets
* her Retirement Points History
* her chronological record of medical care
* her physical profile



CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant served in the U.S. States Marine Corps from 19 August 1981 to 13 June 1992.  On 28 June 2002, she enlisted in the NCARNG and continued to serve through a series of continuous reenlistments.

2.  On 30 August 2007, while serving in the pay grade of E-5, she was ordered to active duty for special work under Title 32, U.S. Code, with the NCARNG.  She was diagnosed as being a diabetic in January 2008.  The available records indicate the applicant was known to have a glucose intolerance; however, they do not specify when her problems began.  Her records also indicate she was prescribed Metformin, which is used to treat Type II diabetes and is indicative of medical history that is not in evidence.  There is no evidence in the available records to show a line-of-duty determination was made in her case.  She was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 November 2008.

3.  On 25 January 2009, she was honorably released from active duty due to completion of required service and was returned to her NCARNG unit.  She completed 1 year, 4 months, and 26 days of active service.

4.  On 1 March 2009 she was transferred to another NCARNG unit because she did not meet the minimum profile standards for deployment.

5.  On 6 June 2009, a Military Occupational Specialty Medical Retention Board determined that the applicant no longer met the Army retention standards based on her medical condition of diabetes mellitus.  The applicant was advised that her condition was determined to be "non-duty related" and indicated that she had 60 days to appeal the findings.  There is no evidence in the available records to show that she filed such an appeal.

6.  On 15 July 2009, the applicant was advised that she could elect to be discharged, to be transferred to the Retired Reserve, or to request a non-duty related physical evaluation board if she desired to be retained.

7.  On 15 September 2009, the applicant was honorably discharged from the NCARNG and was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Retired).

8.  In the processing of this case a staff advisory opinion was obtained from the National Guard Bureau (NGB) which opines that because the applicant was diagnosed with diabetes mellitus while on active duty for greater than 180 days and was determined to be medically disqualified for retention, she should have been reviewed by a medical evaluation board (MEB) for disability processing.  Officials at the NGB recommended that the applicant be afforded an opportunity to be evaluated by a MEB and granted relief as appropriate.

9.  The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment and she responded to the effect that she concurred with the opinion.

10.  National Guard Regulation 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), paragraph 8-26j(1), provides that commanders who suspect a Soldier may not be medically qualified for retention will direct the Soldier to report for a complete medical examination.  Commanders who do not recommend retention will request the Soldier's discharge.

11.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) governs the evaluation of physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability when 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 or her employment on active duty.  It states commanders of medical treatment facilities who are treating Soldiers may initiate action to evaluate the Soldier's physical ability to perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.  The commander will advise the Soldier's commanding officer of the results of the evaluation and the proposed disposition.

12.  Army Regulation 635-40 states that MEB's 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 qualification for retention based on the criteria in Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Notwithstanding the opinion obtained from the NGB which indicates that the applicant was not afforded the appropriate procedural rights to seek a MEB, it appears that there is insufficient evidence in the available records to fully support such a conclusion.

2.  Based on the limited evidence provided by the applicant and the evidence of record regarding the applicant's diagnosed condition or the extent of her condition, it is reasonable to presume that her condition existed prior to service since she was diagnosed 5 months after entering active duty (less than 180 days).

3.  The available evidence suggests that at the time the applicant was found to be non-deployable, it was determined that she was ineligible for medical retention processing (MRP).  The chief qualification for MRP is that the Soldier must have incurred an illness, injury, or disease or aggravated a previously existing medical condition in the line of duty.  The medical authorities at the time, with much more than just the laboratory values provided to this Board, determined the applicant was not eligible for MRP.  If the applicant's medical condition was in the line of duty, this would have been the first opportunity to record it as such.

4.  The applicant was given the opportunity to appeal the State Surgeon's decision; however, there is no evidence to show she did so.  Accordingly, it is reasonable to presume she had no basis to appeal and that is why she elected to be placed on the Retired List.

5.  Given the limited available evidence in this case, it appears that under the circumstances there was no medical or procedural irregularities in her case and she was properly discharged from the NCARNG and was transferred to the Retired Reserve in accordance with her election.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___X____  ___X____  ____X__  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

2.  The Board wants the applicant and all others concerned to know this action in no way diminishes the sacrifices made by the applicant in service to the United 


States.  The applicant and all Americans should be justifiably proud of his service in arms.



      __________X_______________
                 CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110004903



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110004903



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1