MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           11 February 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11127
                                              AR1998014385

	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. Michael L. Engle		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter		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 voluntary separation through the fiscal year (FY) 1994 Enlisted Voluntary Early Release Program be changed to a separation due to medical disability.

APPLICANT STATES:  That she was discharged with the understanding that she had no active lyme disease.  She states that she received a tick bite in 1983 while on active duty and was discharged prior to enough research being done to determine if she had an active lyme disease.

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

She enlisted in the Army on 18 October 1977 for 3 years.  She completed her initial training and was assigned to duty as an administrative specialist.  She attained the rank of specialist four and was honorably discharged on 17 October 1980 due to completion of required service.

On 27 October 1982 the applicant again enlisted in the Army for 4 years.  She was trained as a telecommunications specialist and served in a series of assignments both in the United States and overseas.  She attained the rank of staff sergeant on 6 April 1987.

On 18 August 1992 a medical evaluation board (MEB) convened to evaluate the applicant’s medical condition.  It found the applicant suffered from recurrent proctitis, with a history of recurrent inflamation of the distal colon, consistent with idopathic ulcerative proctitis, chronic fatigue, secondary to fibromylgia, migraine headaches, sinusitis, and a history of thyroid nodule.  The MEB recommended that the applicant be referred to a physical evaluation board (PEB).

On 26 January 1993 a PEB convened to consider the applicant’s medical condition.  It found her fit for duty in her current grade and military occupational specialty.

On 18 March 1993 a formal PEB convened to consider the applicant’s medical condition.  It found her unfit for further military duty and recommended that she be separated with severance pay.

On 5 August 1993 the United States Army Physical Disability Agency (PDA) reviewed the medical and personnel records concerning the above mentioned MEB and PEB determinations.  Based upon the applicant’s continued performance, adequate performance evaluations, and the lack of objective findings that would indicate the presence of an active disease process, the PDA modified the previous findings, rating, and disposition, finding her to be fit to continue on active duty.

On 11 August 1993 the applicant appealed the PDA decision.  On 3 September 1993 the PDA stated “The lack of objective findings to support your symptoms means that on your physical examination and in all the laboratory studies you have had there were none which were considered abnormal or would support a medical impairment.  Psychiatric evaluation on 3 January 1993 indicates that the symptoms you have are psychological and not unfitting.  The fact that you are capable of working six to seven hours per day is good.  The medical studies included in your rebuttal were all considered to be within normal limits.  The Agency reaffirms its decision that you are medically fit to perform your duties as a recruiter.”  The PDA forwarded the applicant’s appeal to the Army Physical Disability Appeal Board (APDAB).

On 19 October 1993 the APDAB voted unanimously to affirm the decision of the PDA and return the applicant to duty as fit.  The APDAB noted that the applicant’s proctitis was well controlled with medication and was thus, not an unfitting condition.  There was no objective medical evidence to support the finding of any active disease process.  The APDAB further stated that subjective symptoms such as fatigue, pain or complaints of stress, unless supported by medical evidence, were not unfitting and thus, unrateable.

The applicant applied for voluntary early release from the Army under the FY 1994 Enlisted Voluntary Early Release Program with Voluntary Separation Incentive (VSI)/ Special Separation Benefit (SSB).  Her request was approved on 3 December 1993 by the appropriate authority.

Accordingly, the applicant was honorably discharged on 28 February 1994 and transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).  She was entitled to a lump sum SSB payment of $47,899.45.  She completed 14 years, 4 months, and 2 days of creditable active service.

On 4 March 1997 the applicant was honorably discharged from the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).

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 voluntary separation under the provisions of the FY 1994 Enlisted Early Release Program with VSI/SSB was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.

2.  The applicant’s contentions that she deserved to be discharged on the basis of a medical condition rendering her unfit for duty is not supported by the evidence of record.
3.  The applicant has not provided any substantiating evidence to support her contentions.

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

__X______  ____X____  _____X___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-11127	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	1999/02/11	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD,	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19940228	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.