RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        5 JANUARY 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050003149


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William Powers                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas Ray                    |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Randolph Fleming              |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his military service medical
records be corrected to show that he was diagnosed with nuclear sclerosis
(cataracts) while on active duty.

2.  The applicant states he was diagnosed with nuclear sclerosis on 13
March 2004, while still on active duty and that he subsequently had lens
implant surgery.  He states there is no mention of this in his military
medical records and as such is unable to receive benefits from the
Department of Veterans Affairs.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of a 27 July 2004 statement from a
civilian eye center indicating he was diagnosed with nuclear sclerosis on
13 March 2004 by a civilian physician, copies of his lens implant
identification label cards, a copy of his February 2005 denial of
Department of Veterans Affairs benefits, and a statement of his
disagreement with the Department of Veterans Affairs rating decision.  He
also submits a copy of his 2004 separation document from Active Federal
Service.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Records available to the Board indicate that in July 1983 the applicant
was found medically qualified for enlistment in spite of having a physical
profile of "2" for his eyes.  He served on active duty as a member of the
Regular Army between August 1983 and July 1984 when he was honorably
discharged as a result of hardship.

2.  In 1991 the applicant was again found medically qualified for
enlistment in the United States Army Reserve although he continued to have
a profile associated with his eyes.

3.  The applicant's available military records suggest he has been
associated with the Army as a member of the Reserve components since 1992.
In January 2003, while a member of the Army National Guard, he was ordered
to active duty in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and was deployed to
the theater of operations.  He was released from active duty on 16 March
2004 and returned to the Indiana Army National Guard.  The applicant was a
resident of Elnora, Indiana.

4.  According to the 27 July 2004 statement from the Wabash Valley Eye
Center, located in Indiana, the applicant was diagnosed with nuclear
sclerosis (cataracts) in both eyes by a civilian doctor of optometry on 13
March 2004.  Other than the statement from the eye clinic, there were no
other medical documents associated with the diagnosis available to the
Board or provided by the applicant.  The applicant's lens implant
identification label cards, which he provided with his application,
indicate he underwent a lens implant on the right eye in May 2004 and on
the left in June 2004.  The surgery was conducted at the Wabash Valley Eye
Center.

5.  In February 2005 the Department of Veterans Affairs denied the
applicant's petition for service connection for bilateral cataracts.  The
applicant apparently submitted a notice of disagreement to the rating
decision, which he included with his application to this Board.  In that
statement he indicated that the military has known about his condition all
along and either chose to ignore or refused to put his evidence in his
medical records.  He states he would not have had lens implants in each of
his eyes if it was not necessary.

6.  Army Regulation 40-66 (Medical Record Administration and Health Care
Documentation) states that an outpatient treatment record will be prepared
for each patient treated as an outpatient at a United States Army Medical
Treatment Facility.  The regulation also notes that health records for Army
National Guard of the United States will be initiated, maintained, and
disposed of by the State adjutants general.

7.  Nuclear sclerosis is a specific type of cataracts.  This type of
cataract begins with a gradual hardening and yellowing of the center of the
lens, called the nucleus.  This hardening gradually expands to the other
layers of the lens.  The cataracts cause light to scatter when it passes
through the lens, which decreases the amount of light reaching the retina.
If left untreated, these symptoms will increase in severity, eventually
leading to severe vision loss that can only be restored through surgery.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Because the applicant's diagnosis of cataracts was not made at a United
States Army Medical Treatment Facility, there is no requirement for the
civilian treatment record to be included in his service medical records.
However, it would clearly be within the authority of his service medical
record custodian to include the information if it impacts on his medical
qualification as a Soldier.  That decision can be made by the record
custodian and does not require action by this Board.


2.  However, while the applicant is asking that his records be corrected to
include his diagnosis of cataracts while he was still on active duty, the
issue really appears to be correcting his records in such a way as to
confirm that his cataracts resulted from his military service, or was
aggravated by his military service in order to receive compensation from
the Department of Veterans Affairs.  There is no evidence which would
support such a conclusion and as such, no basis for this Board to direct
such a correction.

3.  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.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy that requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

__WP___  __TR____  __RF ___  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  Notwithstanding the staff DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS above, the Board
determined during their review that the evidence presented was sufficient
to warrant a recommendation for partial relief as an exception to policy in
the interest of justice and equity by authorizing the filing in the state
Army National Guard and the Department of the Army medical records the
documents from the Wabash Valley Eye Center concerning the applicant’s
diagnoses on 13 March 2004 with nuclear sclerosis (cataracts) in both eyes.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented was
insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result,
the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to
correction of his medical records to show that he was diagnosed with
nuclear sclerosis (cataracts) while on active duty.



                                  _____William Powers_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON
                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050003149                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060105                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |108.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]