IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  19 February 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130004442 


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 correction of her record to show she was medically retired instead of honorably discharged due to disability with entitlement to severance pay.

2.  The applicant states she received a 10 percent (%) disability rating from the Army when a 30% rating was more appropriate for her medical condition.  The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) recognized the error and corrected it 2 weeks after she was discharged, but the Army has not.  The applicant contends that the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) provides that if individuals diagnosed with VA Rating Code 8100 (Migraine Headaches) experience two or more migraines a month, they qualify for medical retirement (based upon a disability rating of 30%).  She attests that her Narrative Summary (NARSUM) states that she had at least two migraines a month, but somehow she received a 10% rating instead of 30%.

3.  She provides a:

* VA Rating Decision Letter
* Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) NARSUM
* DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) Proceedings)
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)



CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 4 February 2009, the applicant completed a DD Form 2807-2 (Medical Prescreen of Medical History Report) in conjunction with her pre-enlistment medical examination.  Item 2a (Have you ever had or do you now have:) of this form shows she indicated she had never had frequent or severe headaches causing loss of time from work or school or taking medication to prevent frequent or severe headaches.

2.  The applicant was born on 5 November 1985 and enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 February 2009 at the age of 23 years, 3 months, and 21 days.  

3.  On 25 June 2009, while still attending advanced individual training (AIT), the applicant visited the Student Clinic of the Raymond W. Bliss Army Health Center, Fort Huachuca, AZ.  The reason for her appointment was to obtain a prescription for migraine headaches.  The applicant informed the examining physician that she was concerned about headaches she was experiencing on the right side of her head.  She reported that she had suffered from the headaches more than
10 years since she was 12 years old and that she experienced sensitivity to light and sound during the onset of the headaches.  The physician noted the applicant suffered from chronic migraine headaches that she experienced sporadically once every two to three months.  She reported her migraine headaches were similar, on the right side of her forehead which throbbed or pounded.  There was no excruciating headache, but it could last one to two days.  She stated she was currently taking a medication named Imitrex that usually worked well to relieve the pain, but she had run out of the medication.  She did not experience any pain relief when she took Motrin.  The physician opined the applicant suffered from classic migraines.  She was prescribed two medications to take at the onset of her headaches and returned to duty. 

4.  She completed initial entry training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 35M (Human Intelligence (HUMINT) Collector).   

5.  The applicant visited the hospital on 34 occasions for reasons other than headaches during the period 18 March 2009 through 26 May 2010.

6.  On 14 and 27 July 2010, the applicant underwent Parts 1 and 2 of a physical examination required in order to apply for attendance at the Officer Candidate School (OCS).



7.  On 25 April 2011, the applicant was seen by a neurologist as a requirement before she would be allowed to attend OCS.  The basis for this requirement was the fact that she had a history of migraines.  The applicant informed the neurologist that she had not had a severe headache in 5 years.  Her headaches manifested as pounding, located frontal, never preceded by aura, usually lasted a couple of hours, were not affected by sleeping or being in a dark room, and there were no identifiable triggers.  The applicant did NOT (emphasis in the original document) want Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) of her brain and she had no prior brain imaging.  She attested that there was NOT (emphasis in the original document) a history of headaches in her family.  She reported that in the past, her headaches were relieved within 2 hours by taking over-the-counter Excedrin.  The neurologist advised the applicant to contact the hospital in the event her headaches worsened, were not relieved by Excedrin anymore, or occurred more than twice a week so they could try alternative prescription medications.  Based upon the applicant's statements that she had not had a significant headache in 5 years and that her headaches were typically relieved by over-the-counter Excedrin, the applicant's migraine condition was deemed as acceptable for OCS and she was returned to duty without limitations.

8.  Headquarters, III Corps, Fort Hood, TX, Orders HO-117-0070, dated 27 April 2011, show the applicant was ordered to deploy in a Temporary Change of Station status in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Kandahar, Afghanistan for a period not to exceed 365 days beginning on or about 26 June 2011.

9.  The following notes were added to the neurologist's 25 April 2011 report on 6 June 2011, 2 months prior to the applicant's scheduled OCS start date:

	a.  The applicant stated, "I don't know what I am going to do, they are getting worse; I have an appointment with you July 23rd" 2011.

	b.  The neurologist noted the applicant assured him that she was capable of following written instructions and would like to try a preventative medication.

	c.  The neurologist also noted that according to Army Regulation 40-501  (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3, section 30, migraine, tension, or cluster headaches, when manifested by frequent (greater than two per week) or incapacitating attacks after 3 months of starting therapy would render a Soldier unfit for duty and require referral to an MEB.



10.  On 7 June 2011, the applicant sought medical treatment for a migraine headache that she attributed to working in the motor pool.  She reported that it was caused by physical trauma, she had a history of similar headaches, and that this was not the worst headache of her life.  She also denied any change in her headaches or vision and indicated that there was no nausea.  She declined an injection of Toradol for her acute pain.  She was given a 3-day profile to limit her activity and instructed to return to the clinic or emergency room if the pain persisted or other concerns arose.

11.  On 8 June 2011, she had a follow-up appointment with a neurologist.  As a result, she was advised to take her prescribed medication when she felt a headache coming on.  If there was no improvement in 1 to 2 hours, she could take another tablet, but no more than 4 tablets a day or 12 tablets a week.  The neurologist scheduled the applicant for an MRI in order to rule out the possibility of a tumor or stroke.  The applicant stated the new medication caused her hands to tingle; therefore, the neurologist modified the dosage, prescribed a potassium supplement, and instructed her on changes she could make to her eating and drinking habits that would prevent the tingling.

12.  On 14 June 2011, the applicant had an appointment at the clinic to determine whether she was fit for duty.  Prescription of an antidepressant was considered, but the applicant did not want to pursue that option at the time.  The examining physician also suggested Biofeedback and other relaxation therapy for prevention and treatment of migraines and the applicant was interested, so a Psychology-Biofeedback was submitted.

13.  On 29 June 2011, the applicant underwent a Biofeedback assessment.  She indicated that she most wanted to improve her ability to cope with stress, cope with anxiety, and decrease the frequency or intensity of her headaches.  She also indicated her new prescription of Topomax was causing some depression, sedation effect, loss of appetite, and anxiety.  She was advised to consult with the prescriber of the medication regarding these side effects.  The applicant was advised that her Biofeedback training plan would consist of 6 to 8 Biofeedback hook-up sessions and that further sessions would be conducted on a case-by-case basis for skill maintenance and support.  For the first two sessions, she was provided guidance on breathing and muscle relaxation training and a relaxation compact disk (CD) with which to practice between appointments at a minimum of 3 to 5 times per week with the progressive muscle relaxation exercise before moving to the next level of training.  For sessions 3 and 4, she would move onto a relaxation body scan exercise.  This technique focuses on passively guiding relaxation in each muscle group of the body.  The remaining sessions would focus on autogenic training to teach her the relaxation response and the way to generalize this response to daily living.  She would then be instructed to use the autogenic training exercise daily or at a minimum of 3 to 5 times per week.  Emphasis is placed on the patient's ability to "feel" relaxed as well as their ability to objectively demonstrate relaxation via their Biofeedback readings.

14.  On 30 June 2011, the applicant underwent her first Biofeedback session.  She was given a relaxation CD to practice with between sessions.  The physician explained the need for frequent practice in order to achieve the desired results from training.  The applicant was instructed to begin training with the progressive muscle exercise and encouraged to practice at least 3 to 4 times per week.  She was encouraged to practice at bedtime when sleep was an issue.  It was noted that she would continue to practice her exercises until the next session which would change the focus of training from a physical technique to a more mind/body awareness exercise.

15.  On 15 July 2011, the applicant had another Biofeedback session.
She reported that she had only one headache the previous week, she was averaging 9 hours of sleep nightly, and she was experiencing high levels of stress and anxiety.  She indicated that she was aware of and in agreement with her treatment plan, but had only practiced her relaxation exercises once in the last week.  She was reminded of the importance of practicing the relaxation exercise as part of the overall relaxation training program and advised that the goal was to practice at least 3 to 4 times per week.  She was further advised that this exercise should help her to focus on breathing and general relaxation of the body with a more meditative and "mind over body" approach to relaxation. 

16.  On 25 July 2011, the applicant had another Biofeedback session.
She reported that she had only one headache the previous week, she was averaging 8 hours of sleep nightly, and she was experiencing high levels of stress and anxiety.  She indicated that she was aware of and in agreement with her treatment plan, but had only practiced her relaxation exercises twice in the last week.  She was reminded of the importance of practicing the relaxation exercise as part of the overall relaxation training program and advised that the goal was to practice at least 3 to 4 times per week.  She was further advised that this exercise should help her to focus on breathing and general relaxation of the body with a more meditative and "mind over body" approach to relaxation.  She was scheduled to begin the final level of Biofeedback training with the autogenic exercise at her next session.  She requested to see a counselor to assist with stress manager.  She was referred for a psychology consult to determine whether she was suffering from an adjustment disorder with depressed mood.



17.  On the morning of 3 August 2011, the applicant had another Biofeedback session.  She reported that she had two headaches the previous week, she was averaging 8 hours of sleep nightly, and she was experiencing high levels of stress and anxiety.  She indicated that she was aware of and in agreement with her treatment plan, but had only practiced her relaxation exercises twice in the last week.  She indicated that what she wanted most to gain from training was how to cope with physical pain.  She was reminded of the importance of practicing the relaxation exercise as part of the overall relaxation training program and advised that the goal was to practice at least 3 to 4 times per week.
She was further advised that this exercise should help her to focus on breathing and general relaxation of the body with a more meditative and "mind over body" approach to relaxation.  She was scheduled to begin the final level of biofeedback training with the autogenic exercise at her next session.  She requested to see a counselor to assist with stress manager.  She was referred for a psychology consult to determine whether she was suffering from an adjustment disorder with depressed mood.

18.  During the afternoon on 3 August 2011, the applicant sought treatment for a headache.  The physician noted the applicant reported that she had headaches after she was inducted, that she had no history prior to that, and the headaches were becoming more frequent.  She also reported she had experienced a lot of emotional trauma.  She applied for OCS and was accepted, but then rejected when it was found that she had migraine headaches and that she cried a fair amount.  She had been seen by a neurologist and a Biofeedback doctor and had been prescribed a variety of medications that had not been effective.  It was noted that many of her headaches started at night, pain was behind both eyes and proceeded by an aura and limb numbness which would go away when the pain started.  It was also noted that she was an interrogator who was scheduled to deploy in December, but had her heart set on being an officer and had not coped with the loss of that opportunity well.  She was given a Toradol shot which greatly relieved her headache and returned to duty without limitations.

19.  On the morning of 16 August 2011, the applicant had her final Biofeedback session.  She reported that she had two headaches the previous week, she was averaging 8 hours of sleep nightly, and she was experiencing high levels of stress and anxiety.  She indicated that she was aware of and in agreement with her treatment plan, but had only practiced her relaxation exercises twice in the last week.  She was encouraged to continue practicing the relaxation exercise as part of the overall relaxation training program and advised that the goal was to practice at least 3 to 4 times per week.  She was further advised that when practiced frequently this technique would facilitate her ability to induce a relaxation response when needed.  

20.  The applicant's record contains a DA Form 7652 (Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) Commander's Performance and Functional Statement), dated 26 August 2001, which shows her unit commander indicated that as a result of her medical condition she did not perform the duties of her interrogator MOS at a level commensurate with her grade and position because the unit was deployed and her MOS is not utilized in the Rear Detachment.  The commander also noted the applicant was not assigned to an appropriate position because she could not deploy to fill her position.  Additionally, her inability to deploy due to her medical conditions/limitations had an adverse impact on the unit's ability to perform its mission because she held a critical MOS.  The commander did not recommend retaining the applicant in the Army because she was unable to fulfill her duties.

21.  On 29 August 2011, the applicant was formally referred to the Joint Department of Defense/VA Disability Evaluation System Pilot process for a fitness for continued military service determination.  As a result, her case was sent to an MEB for evaluation of her headache syndrome.

22.  On 5 October 2011, the applicant underwent a general medical examination as part of a DES claimed condition for headache syndrome.  The Progress Notes for this examination show:

	a.  The applicant had a history of headaches since 2009 (right around the time that she had knee surgery).  Her headaches occurred 3 times a week, stronger front, questionable pounding associated with nausea, photobia and had no clear triggers.  She experienced occasional nocturnal awakening.  The aura manifested in numbness and vision distortion.  The headaches lasted for hours and were relieved by rest and darkness.  A normal, unenhanced MRI of her brain was conducted on 9 June 2011 and revealed enlarged bilateral middle and inferior turbinates which may represent rhinitis.  The applicant had no deployments.

	b.  The applicant reported that she had developed headaches after she had sustained an injury to her left knee in April 2009.  She attested it was getting worse and occurring at a rate of 3 to 4 times a month for a duration of 3 to 4 hours.  It was noted that she experienced fatigue and functional loss.  She was responding well to her current prescription with no side effects.  She was on a profile which limited her to 8 hours of duty per day and she was restricted from carrying a rucksack, marching, extreme exertion, mock combatives, lifting, carrying, working in a hot environment, and exposure to more than 90 degree temperature for more than 1 hour per day.  The applicant reported that she was absent for about 10 to 15 days in the past 12 months due to headaches.  The migraine headaches were prostrating in nature for 3 to 4 hours twice a month.  She had no history of hospitalization.

23.  On 12 December 2011, the MEB Clinic at the Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center (CRDAMC), Fort Hood, TX, evaluated the applicant's case in order to determine whether she was fit for continued duty in the military based upon a physician directed referral.  The reasons for the referral were her diagnoses of headache syndrome (migraine) and knee sprain cruciate ligament anterior complete tear left (complete ACL tear, left and medial and lateral meniscus injury per MRI.  The NARSUM indicates she was first diagnosed with migraine headaches at Fort Huachuca, AZ while attending AIT.  She was reassigned to Fort Hood, TX, where she continued to take medication for her migraine headaches.  She was referred to CRDAMC Neurology prior to being cleared to attend OCS.  The applicant reported that despite the medications and duty limitations, she experienced migraine headaches that were prostrating in nature for 3 to 4 hours twice a month that required quarters.  She was unable to tolerate the side effects of one medication and was switched to different ones, but declined to take the medications and they were terminated 2 days later.  It was noted that she was unable to deploy with her unit as her headaches have required a profile.  She was unable to tolerate extremities of exertion or extended duty hours without her headaches becoming worse.  It was speculated that her condition was likely to remain physically limiting over the next 12 to 18 months and beyond.  It was opined that within the normal degree of medical certainty, the applicant's headaches developed during military training activities and were incurred in the line of duty.  It was further opined that she had fair compliance with medical care.  It was determined that she failed to meet retention criteria in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3, paragraph 30g and should be referred to a PEB for further adjudication.

24.  Her record contains a DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile) rendered by the MEB Clinic at CRDAMC that shows on 2 February 2012, she was given a permanent profile of 312111 for migraine headaches and left knee ACL tear.  Her profile restricted her from performing all but two of the basic Soldier functional activities and the 2-mile run portion of the Army Physical Fitness Test.  She was also restricted from jumping, landing, running, lifting, lowering, carrying, rucking, extremes of exertion, mock combat, working more than an 8-hour duty day, and exposure to extreme heat for extended periods of time.  As a result of these limitations it was determined that she did not meet retention standards in accordance with chapter 3 of Army Regulation 40-501.



25.  Her record contains a DA Form 3947 (MEB Proceedings), dated 19 December 2011, which shows that after consideration of clinical records, laboratory findings, and physical examination, the MEB found the applicant's diagnosis of headache syndrome did not meet retention standards in accordance with chapter 3 of Army Regulation 40-501.  It was further determined that her diagnosis of left complete ACL tear with medial meniscus myxoid degeneration and lateral meniscus tear did meet medical retention standards.  As a result, the MEB recommended that her case be referred to a PEB for disposition.  The MEB findings and recommendation were approved on 15 February 2012.  On 24 February 2012, the applicant indicated that she had been informed of the approved findings and recommendation of the MEB and that she agreed with them.

26.  On 27 June 2012, an informal PEB found her unfit for military service due to headache syndrome which was incurred or aggravated while she was entitled to basic pay, in line of duty in the time of national emergency, and was the proximate result of performing duty.  The PEB determined this condition was unfitting due to the frequency and severity of her headaches, which significantly interfered with the performance of her duties.  Also, her physical profile restricted her from performing several functional activities including extremes of exertion and the wearing of body armor for at least 12 hours per day, which precluded the performance of her human intelligence collector's duties in an austere environment.  Based upon her specific symptoms and the detailed guidance in for VASRD Code 8100, the PEB awarded her a 10% disability rating for headache syndrome.

27.  The PEB also considered her second MEB of left complete ACL tear with medial meniscus myxoid degeneration and lateral meniscus tear both individually and in combination with other conditions.  It was noted that this condition (individually and in combination) was not associated with profile limitations and did not impact the applicant's ability to perform any of the ten functional activities.
The MEB indicated this condition met medical retention standards.  Therefore, this condition is not unfitting.  Accordingly, the PEB did not evaluate this condition according to VASRD standards.

28.  Based on a review of the medical evidence of record, the PEB concluded that her medical condition prevented her from performance of duty in her grade and specialty.  The PEB proceedings stated ratings of less than 30% for Soldiers with less than 20 years of active service require separation with severance pay in lieu of retirement.  The PEB recommended that she be separated with severance pay with a 10% combined disability rating.  She concurred with the recommendations, waived a formal hearing of her case, and indicated that she did not desire reconsideration of her VA ratings.
29.  She was honorably discharged from active duty on 29 September 2012 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), chapter 4.  The DD Form 214 she was issued shows she completed 3 years, 7 months, and 5 days of active military service.  She received disability severance pay in the amount of $17,258.40.  She was assigned an RE code of 3 and a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of "JEB" due to physical disability with severance pay, non-combat related (enhanced).

30.  The applicant provides a VA Rating Decision rendered by the VA Regional Office located in Auburn, WA, dated 13 October 2012, which shows she had the following conditions that were subject to compensation at the time at a combined disability rating of 30% in accordance with the VASRD:

	a.  service-connection for headache syndrome (VASRD Code 8100), 30% from 30 September 2012; and

	b.  service-connection for left ACL rupture (claimed as a knee injury), 0% 30 September 2012.

31.  Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation for 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 this office, grade, rank, or rating in such a way as to reasonably fulfill the purposes of his employment on active duty.  Paragraph 
4-24b(3) lists separation for physical disability with severance pay.

32.  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 rated at least 30%.

33.  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 rated at less than 30%.  Section 1212 provides that a member separated under Section 1203 is entitled to disability severance pay.

34.  The VASRD is primarily a guide in the evaluation of disability resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of or incident to military service.  The percentage ratings represent as far as can practicably be determined the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from such diseases and injuries and their residual conditions in civil occupations.  Generally, the degrees of disability specified are considered adequate to compensate for considerable loss of working time from exacerbations or illnesses proportionate to the severity of the several grades of disability.  For the application of this schedule, accurate and fully descriptive medical examinations are required, with emphasis upon the limitation of activity imposed by the disabling condition.  Over a period of many years, a veteran's disability claim may require reratings in accordance with changes in laws, medical knowledge and his or her physical or mental condition.  It is thus essential, both in the examination and in the evaluation of disability, that each disability be viewed in relation to its history.

35.  The VASRD provides the following specific guidance for determining disability percentages for VASRD Code 8100 for migraine headaches occurring with:

	a.  very frequent completely prostrating and prolonged attacks productive of severe economic inadaptability - 50%;

	b.  characteristic prostrating attacks occurring on an average once a month over last several months - 30%;

	c.  characteristic prostrating attacks averaging one in 2 months over last several months - 10%; and

	d.  less frequent attacks - 0%.

36.  Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permits the VA to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  However, an award of a higher VA rating does not establish an error or injustice in the Army rating.  The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge which disqualify the Soldier from further military service.  The Army disability rating is to compensate the individual for the loss of a military career.  The VA does not have authority or responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service.  The VA awards disability ratings to veterans for service-connected conditions, including those conditions detected after discharge, to compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability.  As a result, these two government agencies, operating under different policies, may arrive at a different disability rating based on the same impairment.  Unlike the Army, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings.




DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows when the applicant underwent her pre-entrance medical examination she indicated that she had no history of frequent or severe headaches and had never taken medication to help cope with headache pain.

2.  Four months after her enlistment date, the applicant sought medical treatment for migraine headaches.  During her examination she reported that she had experienced these headaches off and on more than 10 years, since she was 
12-years old.  She also reported that she was currently taking a prescription medication to cope with the associated pain, but had run out of the medication.  As a result, she was prescribed medication and returned to duty without limitations.

3.  The applicant visited the medical treatment facility numerous times during the period 18 March 2009 through 26 May 2010 for a variety of reasons not related to headaches.

4.  In July 2010, the applicant requested and underwent a physical examination as a prerequisite for applying for acceptance into OCS.  At the time, her record showed that she had a history of migraine headaches for which she was prescribed medication.

5.  On 25 April 2011, the applicant had a consult with a neurologist in order to have her migraine headache condition evaluated prior to being medically cleared to attend OCS.  She told the neurologist "The reason I am here is because I have to see a neurologist before I attend school."  She also told the neurologist that her last bad headache was 5 years ago, there is not a history of headaches in her family, and she did NOT (emphasis added in the original document) want an MRI of her brain.

6.  On 27 April 2011, the applicant was issued orders for deployment to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and she was to proceed on or about 26 June 2011.

7.  During the period 7 to 14 June 2011, the applicant sought medical treatment for increasingly painful and more frequent migraine headaches.  As a result, her prescription was modified in hopes of helping her cope with the associated pain.




8.  During the period 29 June to 16 August 2011, the applicant underwent Biofeedback sessions which were intended to teach her relaxation techniques that she could utilize to help cope with her migraine headaches.  By her own admission, she did not comply with the guidance to practice the techniques a minimum of 3 to 4 times per week.  As a result, her condition did not improve.

9.  On 26 August 2011, the applicant's unit commander rendered a DA Form 7652 indicating the applicant's medical condition prohibited her from performing duties associated with her MOS only because she could not deploy and her MOS was not utilized in the rear detachment and had an adverse impact on the unit's ability to accomplish its mission.  As a result, it was recommended that the applicant not be retained in the Army.

10.  The applicant was evaluated by an MEB.  The MEB NARSUM notes that the applicant reported that despite the medications and duty limitations, she experienced migraine headaches that were prostrating in nature for 3 to 4 hours twice a month that required quarters.  She was found to be unfit because the headache syndrome condition did not meet the retention criteria in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 and she was referred to a PEB for further adjudication.  The applicant concurred with the findings and recommendation and did not request an impartial review of the MEB proceedings.

11.  An informal PEB convened to consider her entire medical history in addition to the MEB proceedings and found her unfit for military service for headache syndrome with a 10% combined disability rating and recommended that she be discharged with entitlement to severance pay.  The applicant concurred with the findings and recommendation of the PEB.

12.  As a result, she was discharged from active duty due to disability with entitlement to severance pay.

13.  The fact that the applicant reported during her MEB process that she had recently experienced two prostrating headaches in the past month is duly noted.  However, the PDES takes a Soldier's entire medical history into account when evaluating the case and it is clear that this was an isolated occurrence which did not meet the VASRD criteria for a higher disability rating.

14.  She has provided no evidence which shows that her disability processing was in error or unjust or that her conditions were improperly evaluated such as to warrant a rating higher than 10%.  Therefore, it has been determined that her discharge by reason of physical disability with entitlement to severance pay was proper and correct at the time and there was no basis to change her disability rating or to change her discharge to a medical retirement.
15.  She attests that the VA subsequently awarded her a disability rating of 30% for headache syndrome and she now believes the PEB should have awarded her a combined disability rating of at least 30% for her condition which would have resulted in a medical retirement.

16.  The fact that a VA medical authority awarded her a higher disability rating is not disputed.  However, this diagnosis does not invalidate the diagnosis and disability percentage previously determined by a competent military medical authority. 

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)                                         AR20130004442



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130004442



14


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1