MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:            29 April 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1998013980

	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. Lee Cates		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Ann M. Campbell		Chairperson	
	Mr. Edwin S. Castle		Member	
	Mr. Cristopher J. Prosser		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 records be corrected to show that she was retired, based on a physical disability.

APPLICANT STATES: That she should not have been removed from the Temporary Disabled Retired List (TDRL) and separated with severance pay.  She contends that a physician noted under “impressions” that her condition was stable and not improved and not likely to improve.  The applicant provided copies of her Medical Evaluation Board (MEBD), Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), and that portion of her TDRL PEB showing the “impressions” of the physician conducting the examination and are attached.

COUNSEL CONTENDS: The Disabled American Veterans was silent on the issue.

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

The applicant entered on active duty on 17 October 1987.  The applicant was qualified and served in military occupational specialty 66H (Medical-Surgical Nurse).  She was advanced to first lieutenant effective 17 October 1989.

On 28 March 1991, MEBD Proceedings indicate she was diagnosed as having asthma and referred to a PEB.

On 16 April 1991, PEB Proceedings indicate a determination of asthma and recommended she be placed on the TDRL at 30 percent disability rating 

On 25 April 1991, the applicant concurred with the PEB recommendation and waived a formal hearing.

On 10 July 1991, she was separated and issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate.  Her Report of Separation indicates she had 3 years, 8 months and 24 days of creditable service.

On 11 July 1991, she was placed on the TDRL with a 30 percent disability rating for bronchial asthma.

On 25 November 1991, PEB Proceedings for reevaluation found her condition had improved and recommended a 10 percent disability rating.  The PEB considered her condition to have improved so as to be ratable at less than        30 percent.

On 17 December 1991, the applicant concurred with the PEB recommendation and waived a formal hearing.

On 16 January 1992, the applicant was removed from the TDRL and discharged from the service with severance pay

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

1.  The applicant’s claim of a physician’s “impressions” is out-weighted by the judgement of a duly appointed PEB.

2.  The PEB used the physician’s “impressions” along with her complete medical record to make their final determination.

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

4.  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

AMC____  ESC_____  CJP____ DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						      Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1998013980	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	1999 April 29	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-40	
DISCHARGE REASON	PD with SP	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.145	Disability Retirement	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.