RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        31 January 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050006326


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Terry L. Placek               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Bernard P. Ingold             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. John G. Heck                  |     |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 that her medical discharge be changed to a
medical retirement.

2.  The applicant states her medical conditions have rendered her virtually
unemployable and non-insurable.  She believes greater consideration was due
to all of her medical disabilities, not just the ones that the medical
panel was willing to report and consider.

3.  The applicant provides her Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Rating
Decision.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 August 1999.  She
completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded
military occupational specialty 92A (Automated Logistical Specialist).

2.  The Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Narrative Summary indicated the
applicant's chief complaints were "back hurts, I get headaches and I have
high blood pressure."  The Narrative Summary indicated the applicant first
sought medical attention for her back on 25 February 2000.  An MRI
(magnetic resonance imaging) done in December 2001 revealed disc
desiccation at L4 to L5 and L5 to S1 with a mild diffuse disc bulge with a
small central disc herniation, a posterior annular tear, herniation in the
anterior thecal sac, and no significant canal or foraminal stenosis.  She
was given oral medications and an epidural nerve block before July 2002, at
which time she was sent back to Neurosurgery where she was diagnosed with
degenerative disc disease, nonoperable.

3.  The Narrative Summary indicated the applicant was diagnosed with labile
blood pressure in December 2000.  She had a motor vehicle accident in
August of 2001 and a complaint of headache at that time.  Frequent visits
for headaches were first thought to be associated with hypertension in
November 2001.  The applicant felt she could not do her job because of her
back pain.  She was first diagnosed with depression around November 2001
and placed on Zoloft, but her symptoms resolved and she was no longer
taking her medications.  Asthma was first diagnosed early in 2001 and she
reported being managed by the Asthma Clinic ever since with good results.
She denied any limitations in her duties due to asthma.

4.  The Narrative Summary listed a prognosis of:  Back, no improvement
expected for her pain; hypertension:  expected to be well-controlled with
medications; Hyperthyroidism:  stable, no treatment necessary; Asthma:
stable, controlled with medications.

5.  On 11 February 2004, the MEB referred the applicant to a Physical
Evaluation Board (PEB) for diagnoses of degenerative disc disease,
essential hypertension with poor control, and headaches associated with
elevations in blood pressure.  The MEB found her asthma and hyperthyroidism
to be medically acceptable.  On 13 April 2004, the applicant agreed with
the MEB's findings and recommendation.

6.  Another MEB Narrative Summary, dated 18 February 2004, discussed only
the applicant's chronic low back pain.

7.  An Addendum to the MEB Narrative Summary, dated 1 April 2004, discussed
the applicant's headaches with elevation of blood pressure.  The Addendum
listed diagnoses of essential hypertension with poor control despite
aggressive medication management and headaches associated with elevations
in blood pressure, no migraine or cluster headache quality.

8.  On 17 May 2004, an informal PEB found the applicant unfit due to
chronic low back pain with no focal neurological deficit with a 10 percent
disability rating.  Her other diagnoses were found to be not unfitting.  On
1 June 2004, the applicant did not concur and demanded a formal hearing.

9.  An Addendum to the MEB Narrative Summary, dated 7 July 2004, discussed
the applicant's daily headaches, shortness of breath, and limitation of
activity due to elevation of blood pressures.  The Addendum listed
diagnoses of essential hypertension, not completely controlled despite
aggressive medical management, and a profile that limited her to a 6-hour
duty day; chronic daily headaches; asthma, moderate, persistent, and a
limitation on her daily activities due to her asthma and that required
daily medication; hyperthyroidism, stable; and chronic low back pain.

10.  An Addendum to the MEB Narrative Summary from the Division of
Neurology, dated 7 July 2004, listed a final diagnosis of chronic daily
migraine without aura.

11.  On 15 July 2004, a formal PEB found the applicant unfit due to chronic
low back pain with no focal neurological deficit with a 10 percent
disability rating; unfit due to blood pressure elevations, some associated
with headaches, that did not appear to be controlled with outpatient
management, no evidence the applicant could do less than 10+ METs
(metabolic equivalents), with a zero percent disability rating; and unfit
for asthma with the pharmacy record not fully supportive of daily
medication use, with a zero percent disability rating (per request of legal
counsel).  The PEB recommended the applicant be discharged with severance
pay.  On 15 July 2004, the applicant concurred with the findings and
recommendation of the PEB.

12.  On 28 October 2004, the applicant was discharged, due to disability,
with severance pay.

13.  A DVA Rating Decision dated 21 March 2005 indicated the applicant was
awarded a 100 percent disability rating (migraine headaches, 50 percent;
asthma with allergic rhinitis, 30 percent; left shoulder impingement
syndrome, 20 percent; degenerative disc disease with chronic lumbar strain,
20 percent; hypertension, 20 percent; knee sprain, both, 10 percent each;
ankle sprain, both, 10 percent each; hip sprain, both, 10 percent each;
wrist sprain, both, 10 percent each; cervical sprain, 10 percent; lumbar
intervertebral disc disease with right foot radiculopathy, 10 percent;
lumbar intervertebral disc disease with left lower extremity radiculopathy
and plantar fasciitis, 10 percent; and scar, status post   C-section,
eczema, and hyperthyroidism/Graves Disease, all zero percent).

14.  Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of
Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of
physical disability.  In pertinent part, it states that occasionally a
medical condition which causes or contributes to unfitness for a military
service is of such mild degree that it does not meet the criteria for even
the lowest rating provide in the DVA Schedule for Rating Disabilities
(VASRD).  A zero percent rating will then be applied even though the lowest
rating listed is 10 percent or more.

15.  Army Regulation 635-40 also 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.

16.  Title 38, U. S. Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permits the DVA to award
compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by
active military service.

17.  Until certain provisions of the law were changed in fiscal year 2004,
a common misconception was that veterans could receive both a military
retirement for physical unfitness and a DVA disability pension.  Under the
law prior to 2004, a veteran could only be compensated once for a
disability.  If a veteran was receiving a DVA disability pension and the
Board corrected the records to show the veteran was retired for physical
unfitness, the veteran would have had to have chosen between the DVA
pension and military retirement.  The new law does not apply to disability
retirees with less than 20 years of service and retirees who have combined
their military time and civil service time to qualify for a civil service
retirement.

18.  Army Regulation 600-8-14 (Identification Cards, Tags, and Badges)
states honorably discharged veterans rated by the DVA as 100 percent
disabled from a uniformed service-connected injury or disease and their
dependents are authorized commissary, theater, and exchange privileges.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contended greater consideration should have been given to
all of her medical disabilities, not just the ones that the medical panel
was willing to report and consider.

2.  It is not clear what the applicant means by her contention.  The MEB
originally referred her to a PEB for diagnoses of degenerative disc
disease, essential hypertension with poor control, and headaches associated
with elevations in blood pressure.  The applicant agreed with the MEB's
findings and recommendation.  An MEB Addendum later added asthma as an
unfitting condition.

3.  A formal PEB subsequently found the applicant to be unfit due to all
three conditions, albeit her hypertension and asthma did not meet the
criteria for the Army to award a rating higher than zero percent.  The
applicant concurred with the findings and recommendation of the formal PEB.


4.  The rating action by the DVA does not necessarily demonstrate an error
or injustice in the Army rating.  The DVA, operating under its own policies
and regulations, assigns disability ratings as it sees fit.  The DVA is not
required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service
in awarding a disability rating, only that a medical condition reduces or
impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned.
Consequently, due to the two concepts involved (i.e., the more stringent
standard by which a Soldier is determined not to be medically fit for duty
versus the standard by which a civilian would be determined to be socially
or industrially impaired), an individual’s medical condition may be rated
by the Army at one level and by the DVA at another level, or the DVA may
award a rating to one or more medical conditions that were not found to be
unfitting, and therefore not ratable, by the Army.

5.  In addition, granting the relief requested would not provide the
applicant any additional benefits.  She would not be entitled to receive
both military retired pay and DVA disability compensation and, as the DVA
has awarded her a 100 percent service-connected disability rating, she is
already entitled to a military identification card for commissary, theater,
and exchange privileges.  Any medical treatment would be provided to her in
DVA facilities.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__tlp___  __bpi___  __jgh___  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.




                                  __Terry L. Placek_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050006326                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060131                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |108.02                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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