MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:             
	DOCKET NUMBER:     

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

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That her discharge for physical disability be corrected to a medical retirement.

APPLICANT STATES:  That two MRI reports were not properly included in an addendum to her medical evaluation board (MEB) when she was considered by her physical evaluation board (PEB).  Since her discharge she has continued to be treated for the same condition for which she was treated while on active duty, a lack of sensation to urinate, and she has now been advised to sit on a toilet every couple of hours to preclude possible complications to her repaired bladder.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

She enlisted in the Regular Army on 17 December 1984, was awarded the occupational specialty of information systems operator, and was promoted to pay grade E-7.

She was seen for complaints of pelvic pain on 30 December 1992 and was diagnosed as having multiple uterine fibroids.  She was treated conservatively with pain medication at that time.

In 1994 she was treated for chronic neck pain and worsening right upper extremity radicular pain.  She was diagnosed as having a small central herniated disc with no evidence of docal canal stenosis.  Her spinal cord was of normal caliber and intensity, as was her bone marrow.

On 17 February 1995 she was again seen for pelvic pain and an ultrasound test detected uterine fibroids again.  

On 12 June 1995 the applicant underwent a vaginal hysterectomy, at her own request, along with a right salpingo-oophorectomy.  She was released in apparent good condition.  She was readmitted a few days later on an emergency basis and was diagnosed with an ureter blockage.  She was administered a nephrostomy at that time and was scheduled for urology surgery on 26 June 1995.  During that surgery a suture line from the hysterectomy was found to have been causing ureter constriction.  This complication was corrected and the applicant was recuperating in the hospital when she was operated on once again due to bleeding complications.

She steadily improved from that point and was released to light duty on 1 July 1995.  Follow up appointments confirmed her healing process and lack of complications.

There is no other evidence of military medical treatment after that date.  However, information obtained from the Physical Disability Agency (PDA) shows that the applicant was considered by a PEB and determined to be physically unfit due to chronic right upper extremity pain of unclear etiology.  No other medical condition had been found to be medically disqualifying by her MEB and, therefore, the upper extremity pain was the only condition for which she was rated.

Based on that finding, the applicant was honorably discharged on 4 May 1996 due to physical disability, rated 20 percent disabled, and given $54,273.60 in severance pay.

Subsequent to the applicant’s discharge she was operated on again by a civilian hospital on 1 June 1996.  At that time she had her left adnexa removed due to it being cystic, and had a hernia repaired.

She was later seen by the VA which removed a stent put in by the civilian hospital and performed a cystoscopy on her.  The findings were that she had a normal urethra.

On 20 November 1996 the VA placed a new stent in her while they performed a cystoscopy and bilateral retrograde pyelograms.  All the tests performed revealed no significant defects or deformities.

She underwent a similar operation on 14 February 1997, again with a finding of no significant defects or deformities.

Her VA records show that she was referred to psychiatry at some point in this process for unspecified reasons.

Army Regulation 635-40 provides that those members who do not meet medical retention standards will be referred to a physical evaluation board to determine whether they are unfit to be retained in the Army and, if so, to determine the percentage of disability to be awarded.  This regulation also provides that only 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.  

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  There is no evidence that the applicant had any unfitting condition on the date of her discharge other than chronic pain syndrome for an unspecified condition.  It is noted that the applicant’s records do not contain any mention of her being treated for that condition subsequent to her discharge.
2.  While the applicant was operated on three times for pelvic problems while she was on active duty, all records show that she healed satisfactorily after her last operation and was returned to light duty.  As such, the Board must conclude that she did not have any pelvic problem which was physically unfitting when she was discharged.

3.  While the applicant’s records show that she has been operated upon on several occasions after her discharge, only the first operation corrected any significant problem – the removal of a cystic left adnexa and a repair of a hernia.  The other operations appear to have found everything to be functioning relatively normally, in consideration of her past operations.

4.  The applicant is receiving medical care from the VA for her complaints of pelvic pain and, should any condition become severe enough to impair her industrial or social abilities, the VA will assign her a disability rating and compensate her accordingly.  Since her pelvic condition was not unfitting at the time of her discharge from the Army, treatment and compensation from the VA, not the Army, would be appropriate.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1998003504	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990408	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.05	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.