IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  3 April 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110020864 


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:

The applicant defers to counsel. 

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests payment of a Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) Traumatic Injury Protection Program (TSGLI) claim on behalf of the applicant.

2.  Counsel states this Notice of Disagreement concerns the applicant's appeal for TSGLI benefits.  TSGLI is a rider enacted to the SGLI Program in 2005 and the program provides a one-time payment to servicemembers who have sustained a serious injury.

3.  Counsel adds the following:

	a.  The applicant's traumatic injury occurred in a motor vehicle accident on 20 December 2008 which resulted in his inability to independently perform at least two activities of daily living (ADL) for at least 30 days.

	b.  He did everything the law required of him to receive payment of his TSGLI claim and was still denied through multiple levels of appeal.  The applicant's loss and the injury that caused it is supported by sufficient medical information.

	c.  On 18 May 2011, the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (AHRC) TSGLI Office issued the most recent denial of the claim and stated the submitted medical documentation indicated the applicant's ADL improved before the 30-day milestone.  Therefore, his loss did not meet the minimum TSGLI standard for ADL loss of at least 30 consecutive days.  The AHRC TSGLI Office directed the applicant to appeal to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR).

	d.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552, and Title 32, Code of Federal Regulations, section 581.3, enable the ABCMR to review and correct military records.  The Board will take action if it finds sufficient evidence in the record that a material error or injustice exists.  The board presumes administrative regularity and the applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.  In this case, error or injustice will be governed by the rules and regulations of the TSGLI Program.

	e.  Title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 9, provides that under the TSGLI Schedule of Losses, Part II, item 19, a claimant with a traumatic injury that results in inability to perform at least two ADL for at least 30 consecutive days is entitled to $25,000.00.  The current standard for qualifying ADL is that the service member requires assistance to perform at least two of the six ADL.  "Requires assistance" is further defined as physical, stand-by, or verbal assistance without which "the patient would be incapable of performing the task."

4.  Counsel contends the following are facts:

	a.  The applicant sustained a traumatic injury to his right arm which directly caused his cubital tunnel syndrome and right ulnar nerve neuropathy.

	b.  He also sustained multiple spine fractures in a motor vehicle accident on 18 October 2008 and after the accident he was in a neck brace for 8 weeks and had strict instructions not to walk up or down stairs or lift any kind of weight.  The applicant could not raise his hands above the shoulders.

	c.  The applicant submitted a TSGLI claim for the 18 October 2008 accident and payment was granted.

	d.  On 20 December 2008, he was involved in a second motor vehicle accident which re-injured his neck.  During this accident, another car collided with the rear of the applicant's vehicle and then proceeded all along the passenger side of the vehicle where he was seated.  This caused traumatic injury to his right arm in addition to re-injury of the neck.

	e.  After the second accident, he began to notice tingling down his fingers and continued to have persistent tingling in his right-hand index and middle finger.  The injuries from the 18 October 2008 accident also persisted and he continued physical therapy for his neck and back.

	f.  In April 2009, his activity level significantly improved and he was able to run and do pushups; however, as a result of the December 2008 accident, he still had tingling in his right index and middle fingers and his right arm felt weaker than the left.  He continued to complain of right-hand numbness throughout June and July 2009 and also complained of right-sided shoulder and neck pain.

	g.  Doctors later conclusively determined the cause of the applicant's pain was a result of the December 2008 accident.  The crash had crushed internal parts of his right elbow, pinching the ulnar nerve severely and causing the tingling and weakness in his right arm and hand.  Medical professionals determined that his right ulnar nerve motor and sensory neuropathy was due to crush injury resulting from the December 2008 accident.  He was diagnosed with cubital tunnel syndrome and double-crush syndrome for which he underwent right ulnar nerve decompression surgery on 4 August 2009.

5.  Counsel states the applicant's medical record contains notations from licensed medical providers who illustrate his inability to independently perform ADL and a timeline of treatment.

	a.  The U.S. Army surgeon who performed the operation indicated the applicant's right arm would remain non-weight bearing for 6 weeks and established that he would follow up for wound check, suture removal, and occupational therapy.

	b.  The surgery on his right limb incapacitated the applicant's ability to perform ADL, especially because he is right-hand dominant.  He continued to have problems with his neck during this period, and due to the pain, limitations in range of motion, and other incapacitating factors from the surgery, the applicant was not able to begin occupational therapy until approximately 2 1/2 weeks post-surgery.

	c.  On 21 August 2009, the applicant visited occupational therapy for his first follow-up appointment after his surgery.  The physician indicated the applicant's wife assisted him with dressing and bathing.  His ongoing treatment plan included follow-up office visits and 4 weeks of bi-weekly occupational therapy.

	d.  Medical notes pertaining to occupational therapy both before and after surgery indicate he had decreased passive and active range of motion of his right arm, ongoing pain, and decreased grip strength.  He was also taking strong prescription pain killers and muscle relaxants.

	e.  The applicant's attending nurse practitioner certified his loss of ADL on his TSGLI application and in her letter.  It was noted that the applicant could not lift or flex his right arm; he needed help putting shirts on and taking them off; he could not reach multiple parts of his body in order to wash them; and he was unable to wash his hair.

	f.  The nurse practitioner also indicated the original estimate of 4 weeks of occupational therapy proved to be inadequate.  Therefore, the applicant continued occupational therapy until he was discharged in November 2009.

6.  Counsel adds that the decision of the AHRC TSGLI Office to deny the applicant's claim on the grounds of insufficient medical information was in error and unjust.

	a.  The decision was incorrect and unjust because there was sufficient medical documentation to support the applicant's inability to independently perform at least two ADL for 30 days, a covered loss under TSGLI.

	b.  Documentation from licensed medical providers addressed his specific injuries of cubital tunnel syndrome and double-crush syndrome and provided evidence of a timeline of treatment including occupational therapy and surgery.

	c.  The medical documentation indicated the applicant required ADL assistance following his surgery.  The evidence does not indicate that his ADL improved before the 30-day milestone; therefore, the AHRC TSGLI Office should have granted his TSGLI claim under U.S. law and Federal regulations.

	d.  The applicant's inability to dress and bath independently for at least 30 days entitles him to a $25,000.00 TSGLI benefit.

	e.  He sustained a traumatic injury to his right arm in a car accident.  As a direct result of this injury, he had significant surgery on 4 August 2009.  After surgery, the applicant was incapable of independently dressing and bathing.  These activities are qualifying ADL and he required assistance from his wife and other caretakers from 4 August 2009 to 11 September 2009, a period of 38 days.  Therefore, the applicant is entitled to $25,000.00 on his TSGLI claim.

	f.  The applicant did not recover before the 30-day ADL milestone.  During phone communications with the AHRC TSGLI Office, counsel learned that part of the reason the applicant's claim was denied was due to a medical report which showed that the applicant's grip strength in his right hand was 55, compared to 95 for his left.

	g.  He was still under doctor's orders for 6 weeks after his surgery; his right arm was to be completely non-weight bearing; and he was also discharged from surgery in a sling.

7.  Counsel argues the fact that only one of the applicant's limbs was injured was not sufficient enough reason to deny his claim.  Applicable law under Title 38, section 980A(a)(3), states the Secretary may prescribe by regulation "conditions under which coverage otherwise provided under this section is excluded."

	a.  The AHRC TSGLI Office has repeatedly referenced an assumption that regarding a single-limb injury, that office is entitled to infer that the Soldier is able to adapt within 30 days and to perform all ADL independently.  This 30-day adaptive assumption referenced in the denial of the first appeal is nowhere in the relevant sections of the U.S. Code, Code of Federal Regulations, or TSGLI procedures guide.

	b.  There is no legal basis for denying a claim based on the fact that the injury was only single-limb.  Additionally, the applicant did have other ongoing injuries and the AHRC TSGLI Office should have looked at the breadth of his injuries, especially his ongoing problems with his neck.

	c.  The re-injury and complications with his neck are a direct result of the second accident in December 2008.  The AHRC TSGLI Office was not entitled to view the applicant's right arm injury in a total vacuum or to assume that he was in perfect health except for a single-limb injury.  Although his arm and shoulder problems alone were sufficient to incapacitate him, his neck problems only further contributed to his incapacitation.

	d.  The AHRC TSGLI Office was also not entitled to second-guess the medical statements of two of the applicant's observing physicians who stated he required assistance with dressing and bathing for at least 30 days.  His occupational therapist and his nurse practitioner, both of whom worked closely with the applicant and directly observed his injuries and recovery, clearly stated he could not independently perform the ADL of dressing and bathing for at least 30 days.

	e.  His attending physicians and not the staff of the AHRC TSGLI Office were in the best position to accurately evaluate the extent of the applicant's ADL loss.  The statements from the applicant and his wife corroborate the physicians' evaluations and there is nothing in the medical evidence that contradicts the medical professional's certified statement on the claim form.

	f.  In the face of all the evidence to the contrary, the AHRC TSGLI Office had no legal right to substitute its own judgment as to whether the applicant was capable of independently performing ADL.

8.  Counsel provides:

* an SGLV Form 8600 (Application for TSGLI Benefits)
* TSGLI denial and appeals letters
* letters of support
* various chronological records of medical care, treatment records, and other medical documents
* a medical summary

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 July 2004.  After completion of training, he served in military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman).

2.  A civilian medical report from the Deaconess Health System shows the applicant and his friend were involved in an automobile accident on 18 October 2008.  Their car rolled into a ditch after they avoided hitting a deer.  They were "life-flighted" to the hospital.

3.  His pre-operative diagnosis was a herniated cervical disc with instability of C5 (fifth cervical disc) through C7 (seventh cervical disc).  The medical report also showed the applicant underwent surgery which included anterior cervical discectomy (removal) and fusion of C6 to C7 with cornerstone interbody allograft and infuse internal fixation with vectra plating system and screws.  Complications showed a dural (tissue which covers the spinal cord) tear which the surgeon was not sure was a complication or a natural course of the procedure.  As such, it was listed as a complication.

4.  His Standard Form 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care) shows he received the following medical treatment beginning 29 December 2008 through 24 September 2009 at Womack Army Medical Center, Fort Bragg, NC:

	a.  On 29 December 2008, he was seen by the Community Health Clinic for a post-surgical examination, herniated disc at C6 to C7, and neck sprain.  He reported his October and December 2008 accidents and hurting his neck both times.  He complained of neck pain and tingling down into his fingers sometimes like before.  The physical findings included neck pain during hyperflexion and chin to right shoulder, tenderness over the c-spine during palpation, and no trauma or infection.  He had good strength in his neck.  He was given pain medication, instructions for follow-up care, and released without limitations.

	b.  On 31 December 2008, he was evaluated by the Physical Therapy Clinic for compression of the sixth cervical vertebra body.  He reported he was in another motor vehicle accident on 20 December 2008 in which his vehicle was rear-ended and he hurt his neck again.  He had persistent paresthesias of the right hand index and middle finger and in both forearms.  He also reported pain in his right upper back.  His motor strength was grossly normal bilaterally in his upper extremities.  He underwent physical therapy treatments from 7 January through 20 July 2009.

		(1)  6 February 2009 – The applicant's cervical fusion surgery in October 2008 was listed as background information.  The applicant reported his functions were improving, but he still had paresthesias of his right upper extremity.  He had no complaints of specific weakness.

		(2)  13 March 2009 – The applicant's cervical fusion surgery is listed again.  The applicant reported his functions were improving, but he still had paresthesias of his right upper extremity and the numbness of his right second and fourth fingers had not resolved.  He felt stronger in his upper extremities.

		(3)  16 April 2009 – The applicant reported feeling much better, his neck felt more stable, he was progressing in his activity level to include running and pushups.  He still had paresthesias in his right index and middle fingers and his right arm still felt weaker.

		(4)  20 July 2009 – The applicant presented for a follow-up visit for upper back pain.  He was given a consult for occupational therapy for upper extremity paresthesias.  He was also pending further evaluation in orthopedics for possible surgery.

	c.  He was seen by the Orthopedic Clinic on 26 January 2009 as a follow-up to his October 2008 surgery.  This visit listed the results of the cervical x-rays which were taken on 15 December 2008 and showed he had anterior cervical discectomy and fusion surgery with stable hardware and progressing fusion.  The physical findings showed he had a decreased sensory response of his right forearm, thumb, index finger, and both middle fingers (seventh cervical disc).

	d.  On 28 April 2009, he had an initial evaluation by the Occupational Therapy Clinic for carpal tunnel syndrome and cubital tunnel syndrome.  He was noted to be performing all ADL.  The date of injury or length of symptoms was shown to begin in October and December 2008 as a result of two motor vehicle accidents.  The overall assessment showed he had signs of cubital and carpal tunnel syndrome with cervical involvement.

	e.  On 1 May 2009, imagery results were cited from the 29 December 2008 and 26 January 2009 examinations on his cervical and thoracic spines.  His October and December 2008 motor vehicle accidents were listed as the reason for the testing.  Overall, it was noted applicant had decreasing symptoms of cubital tunnel syndrome.

		(1)  The 29 December 2008 testing showed no acute abnormality and a stable uncomplicated view of C6 and C7 fusion surgery.  There was no evidence of traumatic, neoplastic, or significant arthritic change in his thoracic spine.

		(2)  The 26 January 2009 test showed post-surgical changes of the C6 and C7 anterior discectomy and fusion.  An inter-vertebral disk-spacer had been placed and there was no evidence of hardware complication.  The alignment and curvature were intact and the pre-vertebral soft tissues were normal.  The radiologist noted that post-operative changes of the lower cervical spine were expected.

	f.  On 5 June 2009, he was evaluated by the Physical Medicine Clinic which showed he was involved in two motor vehicle accidents of which one led to fusion of C6 and C7.  The applicant had persistent right-hand numbness and tingling ever since.  Numbness was in the C7 and also somewhat overlapping an ulnar nerve distribution.  The physician concluded there was evidence of right C7 radiculopathy, primarily chronic, with some acute findings in the triceps and right ulnar neuropathy at the elbow, primarily demyelinating with some conduction block, likely secondary to decreased nerve health from the C7 radiculopathy [double-crush syndrome – when there is compression of the median nerve in the wrist as well as compression of the sixth or seventh cervical nerve in the neck, the overlapping symptoms are called double-crush syndrome].

   g.  On 4 August 2009, he underwent right ulnar nerve decompression surgery.  His post-operative diagnoses showed he had right ulnar nerve decompression and double-crush syndrome.  He was placed in a sling and his hand was elevated after the surgery.  His post-operative plan stated he would remain non-weight bearing for 6 weeks.  He would follow up for wound check, suture removal, and occupational therapy.

	h.  He was seen by the Occupational Therapy Clinic on the following dates and his prognosis shows:

		(1)  21 August 2009 – ADL function showed minimal assistance with basic ADL; his wife assisted with dressing and bathing.  His functional limitations included writing, throwing a ball, and lifting weights.  Follow-up reevaluation scheduled for 3 weeks later.

		(2)  24 and 28 August 2009 – The notes from the follow-up visits did not indicate any limited ADL functions.

		(3)  31 August and 11, 14, and 18 September 2009 – He was evaluated and noted to be improving.  He was released without limitations.

		(4)  21 and 24 September 2009 – Applicant complained of losing his grip when holding onto objects.  He first noticed this when he went to the range and had to hold the pistol grip a long time.  He also had difficulty throwing a ball and lifting weights.

		(5)  29 September 2009 – Doctor noted that his left grip was normal and his right grip was slightly reduced at his fourth and fifth fingers.  He was scheduled to continue occupational therapy and was released without limitations.

5.  Counsel provides a copy of an Application for TSGLI Benefits which contains the following information:

	a.  Part A (Member's Claim Information and Authorization), item 3 (Traumatic Injury Information), shows he and his wife were traveling on 28 December 2008 and their vehicle was struck from behind by a sport utility vehicle while sitting at a stop light.  After hitting them from behind, the other vehicle struck the side of the vehicle the applicant was sitting on.  He began treatments with physical and occupational therapy after the accident.  After his surgery in August 2009, he was unable to bend or move his arm.  He was placed on leave and after a month he was reevaluated.  He also required hands-on assistance with multiple ADL because of his injury.

	b.  Part B (Medical Professional's Statement) shows the qualifying losses suffered by the patient as decompression of ulna nerve in the right arm.  He was unable to use, move, or flex his right arm and also unable to hold any object weighing more than a toothbrush.  Due to lack of function, he needed hands-on assistance beginning 4 August through 11 September 2009.  Item 7 (Medical Professional's Signature) shows this form was signed on 24 September 2009 by a family nurse practitioner.

6.  Counsel provides three letters from various healthcare professionals.  These letters show the applicant was involved in a car accident on 20 December 2008.  Prior to the accident, he did not have any arm pain, numbness, or tingling.  His right grip was also normal prior to the accident.  He was seen for occupational therapy on 21 August 2009.  He had limited strength, function, and range of motion in his right arm and required assistance with multiple ADL.  On 11 September 2009, his ADL had improved but he still suffered decreased range of motion and strength.  He was seen by occupational therapy two to three times per week from 21 September to November 2009, at which time he was released.

7.  Two letters from the applicant and his wife, dated 12 October 2010, show he required physical and occupational therapy subsequent to a motor vehicle accident on 20 December 2008.  He underwent surgery on 4 August 2009.  During the period 4 August through 11 September 2009, he needed his wife's assistance putting on his shoes and socks, putting on his shirts, and bathing.

8.  A letter from the Office of SGLI, dated 17 December 2009, shows his claim for hospitalization due to other traumatic injuries and the loss of ADL due to other traumatic injuries could not be approved.  It was also noted that there was not enough medical information to support his losses.  Information from medical providers should have presented information that demonstrated the extent of his loss, addressed the specific injuries he sustained, and illustrated a timeline of treatment.

9.  On 24 March 2010, the AHRC TSGLI Office sent the applicant a letter explaining his claim was denied because there was insufficient documentation to award beyond the previous payment issued for loss of ADL.

10.  On 17 May 2010, the AHRC TSGLI Office sent the applicant another letter which showed that office reconsidered the decision of his previous claim and was unable to overturn the adjudication.  The medical documentation did not support that he was hospitalized for 15 or more consecutive days as an inpatient or that he could not perform asserted ADL.  It was a reasonable expectation that a Soldier would be capable of adopting, within 30 days of injury, adaptive behaviors to accomplish all ADL in a modified independent manner in coping with a single-limb injury.

11.  A third letter from the AHRC TSGLI Office, dated 18 May 2011, shows the previous claims submitted by the applicant were reviewed as part of the appeal process.  The submitted medical documentation indicated his ADL improved before the 30-day milestone; therefore, his loss did not meet the minimum TSGLI standard for ADL loss of at least 30 consecutive days.

12.  The Office of SGLI sent the applicant another letter on 19 May 2011.  This letter noted that in order to qualify the claimant must have been unable to independently perform at least two ADL for at least 30 consecutive days.  Assistance was described as physical (hands-on), standby (within arm's reach), and verbal (must be instructed).

13.  On 19 January 2012, he retired under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), chapter 4, by reason of permanent (enhanced) disability.  He completed 7 years, 6 months, and 7 days of net active service.

14.  Public Law 109-13 established the TSGLI Program.  The TSGLI program was established by Congress to provide financial relief to Soldiers and their families after suffering a traumatic injury.  TSGLI payments are designed to help traumatically injured service members and their families with financial burdens associated with recovering from a severe injury.  TSGLI provides between $25,000.00 and $100,000.00 to severely injured Soldiers who meet the requisite qualifications set forth by the Department of Defense.  To be eligible for payment of TSGLI, service members must meet all of the following requirements:

* must be insured by SGLI when the service member experiences a traumatic event
* must incur a scheduled loss and that loss must be a direct result of a traumatic injury
* must have suffered the traumatic injury prior to midnight of the day the service member is separated from the uniformed services
* must suffer a scheduled loss within 2 years (730 days) of the traumatic injury
* must survive for a period of not less than 7 full days from the date of the traumatic injury 

15.  A qualifying traumatic injury is an injury or loss caused by a traumatic event.  The AHRC official TSGLI website lists two types of TSGLI losses, categorized as Part I and Part II.  Each loss has a corresponding payment amount.

	a.  Part I loss includes sight, hearing, speech, quadriplegia, hemiplegia, uniplegia, burns, amputation of hand, amputation of four fingers on one hand or one thumb alone, amputation of foot, amputation of all toes including the big toe on one foot, amputation of big toe only, or other four toes on one foot, limb salvage of arm or leg, and facial reconstruction.

	b.  Part II loss includes traumatic injuries resulting in the inability to perform at least two ADL for 30 or more consecutive days and hospitalization due to a traumatic injury and other traumatic injury resulting in the inability to carry out two of the six ADL, which are dressing, bathing, toileting, eating, continence, and transferring.  TSGLI claims may be filed for loss of ADL if the claimant is completely dependent on someone else to perform out two of the six ADL for 30 days or more.  ADL loss must be certified by a healthcare provider in Part B of the claim form and ADL loss must be substantiated by appropriate documentation such as occupational/physical therapy reports, patient discharge summaries, or other pertinent documents demonstrating the injury type and duration of ADL loss.  While TSGLI claims won't be approved without certification from a healthcare provider, additional documentation must be provided to substantiate the certification.

16.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR.  This regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Counsel's request for payment of a second TSGLI claim to the applicant was carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  The available evidence shows his first claim for TSGLI was for an automobile accident occurring in October 2008.  Medical documentation shows he was hospitalized and underwent emergency surgery as a result of the accident.  The AHRC TSGLI Office records show he received payment for 30 days of ADL loss for this event.

3.  His second TSGLI claim is for an event occurring on 20 December 2008 in which he reported he was involved in another automobile accident.  Counsel contends the applicant sustained a traumatic injury to his right arm which directly caused his cubital tunnel syndrome and right ulnar nerve neuropathy and this information is noted throughout medical records.

4.  To the contrary, while his medical records show he underwent months of physical and occupational therapy beginning in December 2008, the reoccurring listed reason for therapy was a result of numbness along his right forearm, right index finger, and both middle fingers.  The 5 June 2009 physical medicine evaluation showed his right ulnar neuropathy was likely secondary to the decreased nerve health from the C7 radiculopathy or double-crush syndrome.

5.  Imagery studies of his cervical spine were done on 15 December 2008, 5 days prior to his second motor vehicle accident, and again on 29 December 2008.  There was no noticeable traumatic injury difference in the images.  In fact, the only comments were attributed to the C6 and C7 discectomy surgery he had in October 2008.

6.  While the statement by the applicant's attending family nurse practitioner in Part B of his TSGLI claim form shows he could not put on his own shoes and dress himself during the period 4 August through 11 September 2009; this entry is not corroborated by information in the available medical records.  A visit to the Occupational Therapy Clinic on 21 August 2009 following his 4 August 2009 surgery was the last entry which showed he had limited ADL function and required assistance.  This is a total of 18 days.

7.  The letters provided by his healthcare providers do not show he required assistance with ADL function beyond the 21 August 2009 occupational therapy appointment.

8.  The fact that the applicant required major medical care and support immediately following two motor vehicle accidents occurring in October and December 2008 is not disputed; however, conclusive evidence has not been submitted to justify a TSGLI payment for loss of ADL for 30 days or more as a result of the second accident.

9.  The AHRC TSGLI Office denied his final appeal for TSGLI and noted that the submitted medical documentation indicated that his ADL improved before the 30-day milestone; therefore, his loss did not meet the minimum TSGLI standard for ADL loss of at least 30 consecutive days.

10.  Neither counsel nor the applicant has provided sufficient documentation to support his contention that his TSGLI claims were improperly disallowed.  Neither the available records nor the medical documentation provided establish a basis to support his request.

11.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear that the record is in error or unjust.  Counsel failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

12.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting relief to the applicant in this case.



BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____x___  ____x___  ____x___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.



      ____________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)                                         AR20110020864



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110020864



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1