IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  31 January 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120011839 


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:

* A review of her medical evaluation board/physical evaluation board (MEB)/PEB for the pseudotumor cerebri (documented as hypertension, intracranial, idiopathic with visual field)
* Review of her mood disorder as a result of military sexual trauma (MST) and possibly post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) rather than a bipolar disorder
* Review of her MEB/PEB to include gastrointestinal and gynecological conditions
* Change her home of record (HOR) to Virginia
* Review why she was on the temporary disability retired list (TDRL) for 6 years
* Review a rebuttal written by staff sergeant (SSG) TB about how her case was processed
* Review her Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rating

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  She was medically discharged from the Active Guard Reserve (AGR) in March 1999 as a result of a line of duty illness and injuries.  For several years, she was grossly over-medicated with several line of duty illnesses.  She is currently rated at 80-percent service-connected disability compensation by the VA.  

	b.  She was in compliance with all her medical reevaluations and/or examinations and reported every 18 months; however, the travel vouchers were never received or processed on her behalf.  

	c.  Her place of entry on active duty was Virginia, not Baltimore, Maryland as listed on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).  However, she was born in Baltimore, Maryland.

	d.  She filed a sexual harassment claim and the command made it difficult for her to function.  She was referred to Mental Health for psychological trauma and given a mood/personality disorder diagnosis.  During this time, she started having trouble sleeping, concentration difficulties, and a number of other health problems (gastrointestinal problem, weight gain, and specific gender issues) as well as developing a cranial pseudo tumor which is known to be the result of excess amounts of Lithium.  

	e.  She had experienced sexual trauma by her drill sergeant in basic combat training.  She was afraid to tell for fear of not graduating and she was told by her drill sergeant not to tell.  Later in her career, she was sexually harassed by Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) DA and reported the situation to her chain of command. Naturally, when the new perpetrator at her new duty station started sexually harassing her, it reminded her of her sexual trauma in the military.

	f.  She did not have the proper counsel from her PEB Liaison Officer (PEBLO).  She wanted to complete her service obligation while on the TDRL for 5 years.  She had a total of 9 years, 9 months, and 22 days of Reserve and active duty service.  Her career ended because of MST.  She still remembers SSG P informing her she would receive severance pay and not having to do anything with the military.  

3.  The applicant provides:

* DA Form 199 (PEB Proceedings), dated 12 January 2005
* Letter from the VA – Maryland Health Care System
* DA Form 3947 (MEB Proceedings)
* Waiver of Rights to Election, dated 14 February 2005
* Letter from the U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA), dated 12 January 2005
* Letter from the PEBLO, dated 4 January 2005
* Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) – Psychiatric TDRL Evaluation, dated 27 December 2004
* WRAMC Neurology Clinic – TDRL Examination, dated 27 September 2004
* Orders D49-6, dated 18 February 2005, removing her from the TDRL
* DA Form 199, dated 14 January 1999 (placement on TDRL)
* WRAMC TDRL Evaluation, dated 3 December 2003
* Request for retention in service beyond expiration of period of service for completion of hospitalization
* Letter Orders D12-102, dated 21 July 2003
* Listing of medication profile January 1999 to December 2005
* Letter from the VA (undated)
* DA Form 199, dated 3 September 2002 (2002 TDRL) 
* WRAMC TDRL Evaluation, dated 1 May 2002
* Multiple service and VA medical records
* VA rating, dated 13 November 2007 and 1 September 2011
* DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record)
* September 1998 Leave and Earnings Statement
* DA Forms 2166-7 (Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Evaluation Report) for the rating period September 1995 through March 1998
* Orders 236-004, dated 24 August 1995
* National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 23B (Army National Guard (ARNG) Retirement Points History Statement)
* DA Form 4836 (Oath of Extension of Enlistment or Reenlistment)
* Internet printout regarding bipolar disorder
* DD Form 214 ending on 31 March 1999
* VA progress notes

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant's records show she enlisted in the Connecticut Army National Guard (CTARNG) for a period of 8 years on 9 June 1989.  Her DD Form 4 (Enlistment/Reenlistment Document) is not available for review with this case.  However, her official records contain a DD Form 1966/1 (Record of Military Processing - Armed Forces of the United States) that listed in items 4 (Current Address) and 5 (Home of Record Address) the entry "X Town Colony Drive, Number XXX, Middletown, Middlesex, CT 06457." 

3.  She entered active duty for training (ADT) on 24 May 1990 and completed the required training for military occupational specialty 76V (Materiel Storage and Handling Specialist).  

4.  She was released from ADT to the control of her state ARNG on 18 September 1990.  Her DD Form 214 for this period of service listed in:

* Item 7a (Place of Entry into Active Duty) – New Haven, CT
* Item 7b (HOR at Time of Entry) - "X Town Colony Drive, Number XXX, Middletown, Middlesex, CT 06457"

5.  She was originally assigned to Company B, 143rd Forward Support Battalion, CTARNG; however, on 10 May 1991, she received an acceptance/approval to transfer to the Virginia ARNG (VAARNG).  She was assigned to Company B, 729th Maintenance Battalion, Blacksburg, VA.

6.  On 29 May 1992, she was reassigned to Headquarters, State Area Command (Troop Command), VAARNG, Richmond, VA.

7.  On 24 August 1995, the NGB published Orders 236-004 ordering her to active duty in the AGR program for a period of 3 years effective 12 September 1995.  The orders listed her HOR as "Baltimore, Maryland."  She was assigned to the Military Personnel Services Office, Arlington, VA as an administrative NCO.  

8.  On 13 January 1998, she executed a 6-month extension of her initial 8-year enlistment.  

9.  On 14 September 1998, the NGB published Orders 257-001 ordering her to active duty for 6 months and 1 day effective 11 September 1998.  She was assigned to the Military Personnel Services Office, Arlington, VA as an administrative NCO and she was attached to Headquarters Company, Fort Myer, VA.  

10.  Two weeks before this active duty order, on 25 August 1998, she was admitted to WRAMC for a manic episode.  Upon admission, she claimed that she had fallen down a flight of stairs at her home.  She elected to hitchhike to the hospital instead of calling an ambulance.  Upon arrival, she was noted to be agitated and demanding.  An extensive workup failed to reveal any significant injuries as a result of her fall.  A psychiatric evaluation revealed a great deal of stress.  She subsequently had multiple evaluations and treatments.  Her narrative summary noted the following:

	a.  She was noted to be carrying a Bible, demanding to speak with the chaplain and alternatively claiming to be a medical student and a physician assistant.  Subsequent collateral information revealed a 2-week history of expansive mood with increased goal-directed activity, manifested by excessive volunteer work at the church as well as impulsivity, distractibility, and tangential thinking.  

	b.  She reported depressive symptoms dating back to 1997 and treatment by medication (Zoloft and Trazodone) as well as treatment at the Fort Belvoir psychiatric and psychological clinics.  She also reported heavy use of marijuana in the past as well as occasional binge drinking.  

	c.  Her mental status evaluation revealed a hostile attitude toward the interviewer and although she did not reveal suicidal ideation, her auditory or visual hallucinations were suggestive of grandiose and persecutory delusions.  Her judgment and impulse control were impaired and her insight was poor.  

	d.  Her final diagnosis was that of bipolar disorder, most recent episode manic, severe with mood congruent psychotic features manifested by a 2-week history of persistently elevated mood with grandiosity, pressured speech, flight of ideas, distractibility, and increased goal-directed activity, as well as delusions of persecution and thought disorganization, stress (moderate, occupational) and lack of social support.  The applicant was unable to satisfactorily perform the duties expected of a member of her rank and military specialty.  Accordingly, she was referred to the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES).

11.  On 7 October 1998, an MEB convened at WRAMC and after consideration of clinical records, laboratory findings, and physical examinations, the MEB found the applicant was diagnosed as having the medically-unacceptable condition of bipolar disorder, most recent episode, manic severe with mood congruent psychotic features, manifested by a 2-week history of persistently elevated mood with grandiosity, pressured speech, flight of ideas, distractibility, and increased goal-directed activity, as well as delusions of persecution and thought disorganization, stress (moderate, occupational) and lack of social support.  The MEB recommended her referral to a PEB.  

12.  She did not agree with the MEB's findings and recommendation and appears to have submitted an appeal (not available for review with this case).  However, on 15 October 1998, the MEB approving authority reviewed her appeal but confirmed the original findings and recommendations.  
13.  On 14 January 1999, an informal PEB convened at WRAMC.  The PEB found the applicant's condition prevented her from performing the duties required of her grade and military specialty and determined that she was physically unfit due to bipolar disorder (most recent episode manic, severe with mood-congruent psychotic features) and hypertension (intracranial, idiopathic with visual field showing mild peripheral constriction – no visual disability).  She was rated under the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) as follows:

* Code 9432 – Bipolar Disorder – 30%
* Codes 6099/6013 – Hypertension – 10%

The PEB recommended a combined rating of 40% and that the applicant be placed on the TDRL with reexamination during July 2000.  

14.  On 21 January 1999, the applicant was counseled by a PEBLO regarding her medical condition, the findings of the MEB, the PEB process, and her rights under the law.  Subsequent to this counseling, the applicant concurred with the PEB's finding and recommendation and waived her right to a formal hearing.

15.  She was honorably retired on 31 March 1999 and placed on the TDRL effective 1 April 1999.  Her DD Form 214 shows she was retired by reason of temporary disability under the provisions of paragraph 4-24b(3) of Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation).  Her DD Form 214 for this period shows she completed 3 years, 6 months, and 27 days of active service.  Additionally, this form shows in:

* Item 7a - "Baltimore, MD"
* Item 7b - "Baltimore, MD"

16.  On 19 April 2002, she was seen at the National Naval Medical Center, Bethesda, MD, as a follow up on her prior diagnosis of idiopathic intracranial hypertension.  On physical examination, the neurologist stated her mental status and cranial nerves were intact.  Her visual fields were full to confrontation and the discs were sharp bilaterally, without any swelling.  Her diagnosis was as follows:

* Resolved idiopathic intracranial hypertension
* Migraine headaches without aura

The neurologist opined that no further treatment for idiopathic intracranial hypertension was necessary and if the headache gets worse, she could return to neurology.  


17.  On 3 September 2002, a TDRL PEB convened at WRAMC.  The PEB found the applicant continued to display symptoms of bipolar disorder but continued to receive therapy and medication.  Additionally, her condition of hypertension (intracranial, idiopathic with visual field showing mild peripheral constriction – no visual disability) had been resolved.  She now had headaches but they were not associated with her resolved condition.  Her one disabling condition was determined to have not stabilized to the point that a permanent degree of severity could be determined.  She remained rated at 30% or above and as such, she was ordered retained on the TDRL.  

18.  On 5 December 2003, she underwent a TDRL examination.  The examination noted that she continued to seek psychiatric care at the VA with medications and/or evaluations.  She also continued to have episodes of both mania (3 episodes) and depression (4 episodes).  Her diagnosis was bipolar disorder, most recent episode manic, severe with mood-congruent psychotic features, manifested by discrete period of elevated mood, decreased need for sleep, pressured speech, increased goal-directed activity, and increased participation in pleasurable activities.  The examining physician opined that she remained medically unacceptable in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 and referred her to a PEB for disposition.  

19.  On 27 December 2004, she underwent a final TDRL examination.  The examination noted that she continued to seek psychiatric care at the local VA with medications and/or evaluations.  She also continued to meet the criteria for a bipolar disorder including both manic and depressive episodes.  She indicated her desire to return to active duty and demonstrated a pattern of expansive mood by stating that everything was going well in her life.  She was unable to recognize the problems she was facing.  The psychiatrist indicated that she had been inconsistent in her follow-up and that she ought to follow-up more with him.  He further opined that her condition had not changed significantly since it began.  The examining physician opined that she remained medically unacceptable in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 due to bipolar disorder, most recent episode hypo-manic and referred her to a PEB for disposition.

20.  On 12 January 2005, a TDRL PEB convened at WRAMC.  The PEB noted the applicant was being managed as an outpatient with no hospitalization and that she recently completed a nursing degree with little functional impairment.  The PEB also noted that her TDRL examination noted her idiopathic intracranial hypertension had resolved and was no longer unfitting or ratable.  Furthermore, the TDRL PEB noted her headaches and low back pain were not unfitting or ratable.  The PEB rated her at 0% for bipolar disorder based on the current degree of severity of her condition and recommended her separation with entitlement to severance pay.  
21.  On 12 January 2005, by certified mail (letter), an official at the USAPDA notified her that a TDRL PEB recommended her name be removed from the TDRL and separate her with entitlement to severance pay.  The official advised her of her rights and the options available to her.  

22.  On 27 January 2005, by letter, an official at the VA – Maryland Health Care System notified her that she was being terminated from her career-conditional appointment as a Nursing Assistant effective 11 February 2005 due to persistent tardiness, use of unscheduled leave, and two instances of absence without leave. 

23.  On 14 February 2005, after the PEB had not received the applicant's election or any additional information, her case was forwarded to the USAPDA where an official approved the findings and recommendation on behalf of the Secretary of the Army.  

24.  On 18 February 2005, the USAPDA published Orders D49-6 removing her from the TDRL and discharging her from the Army effective 1 April 2004 with entitlement to severance pay.  

25.  On 24 October 2007 and in the subsequent months/years, the VA awarded or increased her service-connected disability compensation for and at the rate of:

* Irritable bowel syndrome, increased from 10% to 30%
* Bipolar disorder, 50%
* Migraine headaches, 10%
* Amenorrhea or hormone imbalance, 10%

26.  Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army PDES 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 states there is no legal requirement in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity to rate a physical condition which is not in itself considered disqualifying for military service when a Soldier is found unfit because of another condition that is disqualifying.  Only the unfitting conditions or defects and those which contribute to unfitness will be considered in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity warranting retirement or separation for disability.  

	a.  Chapter 7 provides for action following PEB evaluation or on fifth anniversary.  The USAPDA will remove a Soldier from the TDRL as described below on the fifth anniversary of the date the Soldier’s name was placed on the list, or sooner on the approved recommendation of a PEB.

		(1)  Permanent retirement:  If the Soldier meets the criteria below, the Soldier will be removed from the TDRL, permanently retired for physical disability, and entitled to receive disability retired pay: The Soldier is unfit, or the disability causing the Soldier’s name to be placed on the TDRL has become permanent, or the disability is rated at 30% or more under the VASRD, or the Soldier has at least 20 years of active Federal service.

		(2)  Separation:  A Soldier will be removed from the TDRL and separated with severance pay if the Soldier has less than 20 years of service, or is unfit because of the disability for which the Soldier was placed on the TDRL; and either the disability has stabilized at less than 30%; or the disability, although not stabilized, has improved so as to be ratable at less than 30%.  A former Regular Army enlisted Soldier who would be separated under this authority may request a waiver to reenlist. 

		(3)  Fit for duty:  If a Soldier is determined physically fit to perform the duties of their office, grade, rank or rating (and is otherwise administratively qualified), the following procedures apply:  Former Soldiers of the ARNG, subject to their consent, may be reappointed or reenlisted in the ARNG in the grade held on the day before the date placed on the TDRL, or in the next higher grade if the proper State authorities reappoint or reenlist them in the ARNG of the State concerned.  They may request active duty.  If the Soldier cannot be reappointed or reenlisted in the ARNG, and subject to the Soldier’s consent, he or she will be reappointed or reenlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve or transferred to the Retired Reserve, if eligible.

	b.  If a Soldier fails to respond to correspondence concerning the medical examination or fails or refuses to complete a medical examination, USAPDA will make an effort to discover the reason.  If such action cannot be justified and the fifth anniversary of placement on the TDRL has not been reached, USAPDA will notify the Soldier and the Chief, Retired Pay Operations, Defense Finance and Accounting Service, Cleveland, Ohio; to suspend retired pay.  USAPDA will keep the Soldier’s name on the TDRL until the fifth anniversary unless it is removed sooner by other action.

	c.  Removal on fifth anniversary:  Soldiers on the TDRL shall not be entitled to permanent retirement or separation with severance pay without a current acceptable medical examination, unless just cause is shown for failure to complete the examination.  Six months before the fifth anniversary of placement on the TDRL, USAPDA will make a final attempt to contact the Soldier and arrange a final examination.  If this fails and the Soldier does not undergo a physical examination, USAPDA will administratively remove him or her from the TDRL on the fifth anniversary of placement on the list without entitlement to any of the benefits provided by Title 10. U.S. Code, chapter 61.

27.  Army Regulation 40-501 governs medical fitness standards for enlistment; induction; appointment, including officer procurement programs; retention; and separation, including retirement.  Once a determination of physical unfitness is made, the PEB rates all disabilities using the VASRD.  Ratings can range from 0% to 100%, rising in increments of 10%.

28.  Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, 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 USAPDA, under the operational control of the Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (HRC), is responsible for administering the PDES and executes Secretary of the Army decision-making authority as directed by Congress in chapter 61 and in accordance with Department of Defense Directive 1332.18 and Army Regulation 635-40.

	a.  The objectives of the system are to:

* maintain an effective and fit military organization with maximum use of available manpower
* provide benefits for eligible Soldiers whose military service is terminated because of service-connected disability
* provide prompt disability processing while ensuring that the rights and interests of the government and the Soldier are protected

	b.  Soldiers are referred to the PDES:

* when they no longer meet medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3, as evidenced in a medical evaluation board
* receive a permanent medical profile, P3 or P4, and are referred by an MOS Medical Retention Board
* are command-referred for a fitness-for-duty medical examination
* are referred by the Commander, HRC

	c.  The mere presence of a medical impairment does not in and of itself justify a finding of unfitness.  In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier may reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.  Reasonable performance of the preponderance of duties will invariably result in a finding of fitness for continued duty.   A Soldier is physically unfit when a medical impairment prevents reasonable performance of the duties required of the Soldier's office, grade, rank, or rating.

29.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rating of at least 30 percent.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years of service and a disability rating at less than 30 percent.

30.  The VASRD is used by the Army and the VA as part of the process of adjudicating disability claims. It is a guide for evaluating the severity of disabilities resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of, or incident to, military service.  This degree of severity is expressed as a percentage rating which determines the amount of monthly compensation. 

31.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program) provides the policies and procedures for the preparation of enlistment contracts.  It states, in pertinent part, that the HOR address entered on the enlistment contract will be the address declared by the applicant to be their permanent home or actual home at the time of enlistment.  A temporary address will not be entered.  

32.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) establishes the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  The 
DD Form 214 is prepared for all personnel at the time of their retirement, discharge, or release from active duty.  Item 7 of the DD Form 214 shows the place of entry onto active duty and HOR at time of entry.  Item 7b shows the street, city, state and ZIP code listed as the Soldier’s HOR.  The "HOR" is the place recorded as the HOR of the Soldier when commissioned, appointed, enlisted, or ordered to a tour of active duty.  This cannot be changed unless there is a break in service of at least 1 full day (Joint Federal Travel Regulations (JFTR), Volume 1, App A, Part I).  The HOR is not always the same as the legal domicile as defined for income tax purposes.  Legal domicile may change during a Soldier’s career.

33.  The JFTR provides, in pertinent part, that the HOR is the place recorded as the home of the individual at the time of enlistment or induction.  There is no authority to change the HOR as officially recorded at time of entry into the military service.  However, there is authority to correct a HOR if erroneously entered on the records at that time, and then only for travel and transportation purposes.  Correction of the HOR must be based on evidence that a bona fide error was made and the HOR as corrected must have been the actual home of the individual at the time of entry into the relevant period of service.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant raises various military medical issues, administrative issues, and VA issues.  Each issue is addressed separately.  

2.  With respect to the HOR:

	a.  By law and regulation, the HOR is the place recorded as the home of the individual at the time of their enlistment or induction, appointment, or entry on active duty, and there is no authority to change the HOR officially recorded at the time of entry into military service unless it is based on evidence that a bona fide error was made.  

	b.  In this case, the evidence of record shows upon her initial enlistment in the ARNG, the applicant listed her HOR as "X Town Colony Drive, Number XXX, Middletown, Middlesex, CT 06457."  Her 1990 ADT DD Form 214 correctly listed her HOR.  

	c.  She transferred to the VAARNG and entered the AGR program on 12 September 1995.  Her orders to active duty show her address and HOR as "Baltimore, MD."  Although she transferred to the VAARNG and entered the AGR program in Virginia, this state was never her HOR.  Accordingly, when her DD Form 214 was prepared upon her placement on the TDRL, it correctly listed "Baltimore, MD" as her HOR.  There is neither an error nor an injustice or a reason to change the HOR listed on her DD Form 214.

3.  With respect to the review of her VA rating, this issue is not within the purview of this Board.  Any VA issue should be addressed to that agency.  

4.  With respect to the rebuttal written by SSG TB about how her case was processed, it is unclear who SSG TB is, what SSG TB rebutted, or how such rebuttal relates to the applicant. 

5.  With respect to MST, nothing in the applicant's records shows she experienced MST.  There are no police reports, U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command investigation, medical reports, or any evidence to corroborate this claim.  In the absence of a confirmed and substantiated finding of MST and a diagnosis that such MST rendered her physically unfit to perform the duties required of her grade and military specialty, there is no reason to list such condition on her MEB or PEB.

6.  With respect to the inclusion of gastrointestinal and gynecological conditions on her MEB/PEB, there is no evidence she was found to have these conditions at the time she underwent her MEB medical examination or during her subsequent TDRL examinations.  

7.  With respect to the bipolar disorder and hypertension:

	a.  The applicant sustained medical conditions that warranted her entry into the PDES.  She underwent an MEB which recommended her referral to a PEB.  The PEB found her medical conditions of bipolar disorder and hypertension prevented her from reasonably performing the duties required of her grade and military specialty. 

	b.  The PEB determined she was physically unfit for further military service.  However, her conditions were not fully stable for final adjudication.  The PEB rated both conditions and recommended placing her on the TDRL with a combine rating of 40%.  The applicant agreed with the findings and recommendations and waived her right to a formal hearing of her case.

	c.  She underwent multiple TDRL examinations in 2002, 2003, and 2004.  Although her bipolar disorder remained unfitting, in 2002 her condition of hypertension (intracranial, idiopathic with visual field showing mild peripheral constriction – no visual disability) had been resolved.  The medical evidence showed she had headaches but they were not associated with her resolved condition.  Her one disabling condition was determined to have not stabilized to the point that a permanent degree of severity could be determined.  She remained rated at 30% or above and as such, she was ordered retained on the TDRL.

	d.  By law and regulation, the maximum she could remain on the TDRL is 5 years.  She was placed on the TDRL on 1 April 1999.  Her mandatory removal date was 1 April 2004.  It is unclear why a final determination was not made at that time.  It appears officials realized she had been placed on the TDRL in excess of what is authorized by law and regulation.  In any case, during her last TDRL examination, her condition was found to have improved.  She was advised of her rights but failed to respond.  Accordingly, she was removed from the TDRL effective 1 April 2004 and ordered separated with entitlement to severance pay.  There is neither an error nor an injustice.  

	e.  The applicant does not provide medical evidence to support a higher rating.  However, she appears to contend since the VA awarded her service-connected disability for various conditions including irritable bowel syndrome, bipolar disorder, migraine headaches, and amenorrhea or hormone imbalance, the Army should have, in effect, done the same.  There are two important concepts that require clarification.  
		(1)  One, the Army and the VA disability evaluation systems are independent of one another.  A diagnosis of a medical condition and/or a subsequent award of a rating by another agency do not establish error by the Army.  Operating under different laws and their own policies, the VA does not have the authority or the responsibility for determining medical unfitness for military service.  The VA may award ratings because of a medical condition related to service (service-connected) and affects the individual's civilian employability.  The VA has the responsibility and jurisdiction to recognize any changes in a condition over time by adjusting a disability rating.

		(2)  If and when identified, diagnosed, evaluated, and rated, a disability rating assigned by the Army is based on the level of disability at the time of the Soldier's separation and can only be accomplished through the PDES.  Only those conditions that render a member unfit for continued military duty at the time of separation will be rated.  However, the VA could potentially rate all service-connected conditions. 

		(3)  In the applicant's case, the only conditions that were limiting her ability to perform her military duties in 1999 were bipolar disorder and hypertension.  There was no diagnosis of any other condition being disabling at the time of her separation.  Whenever there is a disability, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier may reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.  A Soldier is physically unfit when a medical impairment prevents reasonable performance of the duties required of the Soldier's office, grade, rank, or rating.

		(4)  A disability rating assigned by the Army is based on the level of disability at the time of the Soldier's separation and can only be accomplished through the PDES.  The applicant was properly rated in 1999, reevaluated in 2002, 2003, and 2004; and removed from the TDRL on 1 April 2004.  

8.  The applicant's physical disability evaluation was conducted in accordance with law and regulations.  There does not appear to be an error or an injustice in her case.  She has not submitted substantiating evidence or an argument that would show an error or injustice occurred in her case.  In view of the circumstances in this case, there is insufficient evidence to grant her relief.






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 that 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)                                         AR20120011839





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120011839



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1