MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            12 August 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999021178

	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	
	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. James M. Alward		Member	
	Ms. Meta Waller		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:  In effect, that her disability awarded by the Army be increased.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that her case should be reopened due to her chronic neck pain associated with headaches and loss of sensation to her right hand.  She also states that the decision made regarding her disability was unjust because not all factors involved were introduced to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).  She further states that her chronic back pain was present but there was no mention of her chronic neck pain associated with headaches, nor was the loss of sensation to her right hand.  She goes on to state that both conditions are linked directly to the degenerative joint disease that she has been diagnosed with.  In support of her application she submits several copies of Standard Form 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care) and DD Form 2161 (Referral for Civilian Medical Care) and a copy of DA Form 5181 (Screening Note of Acute Medical Care).

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

The applicant enlisted on 1 November 1983 as a unit supply specialist. 

The applicant sustained a back injury in July 1990 at Fort Bragg, North 
Carolina, while participating in airborne operations.  She was unable to lower her equipment and landed with full gear resulting in a back injury and was treated at the Troop Medical Center (TMC) at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  She was given medication, issued a profile and referred to Orthopedics.

On 7 August 1996, the applicant was given a DA Form 3349 (Medical Condition-Physical Profile Record), which states her permanent physical profile was
311111.  

The applicant’s physician prepared a prepared a narrative summary on 9 August 1996, in which he indicated that the applicant has had a chronic recurrent upper back pain for at least five years.  He also indicated that her evaluation otherwise has included a normal CBC (complete blood count), urinalysis and bone scan in 1990 and also in August 1995.  He further indicated that a complete spine series of the C-spine (cervical), thoracic (chest) spine and lumbar sacral (situated near the sacrum) spine in June 1995 reveals osteophyte (a bony excrescence or osseous outgrowth) formation in the upper thoracic spine only.

The applicant underwent a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) medical evaluation
on 9 August 1996, and was found not qualified for retention with a 113111 physical profile. 

On 5 October 1996, the applicant’s case was considered by a MEB with her present and the MEB diagnosed her with chronic back pain with degenerative joint disease of the thoracic spine.

The MEB unanimously recommended that the patient be referred to a PEB.  
The applicant indicated she did not desire to continue on active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40.  The MEB results were approved on 23 October 1996.

On 19 November 1996, the applicant’s case was considered by an informal PEB which convened at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.  The PEB found the MEB’s diagnosis of chronic back pain with degenerative joint disease of the thoracic spine unfitting.  The PEB indicated that after a review of the medical evidence of record, it concluded the applicant’s medical condition prevents satisfactory performance of duty in her grade and primary military occupational
Specialty (MOS).  The PEB found the applicant unfit and recommended that she be separated from the service with severance pay and rated her disability at
10 percent.

On 11 December 1996, the applicant did not concur and requested a formal hearing and reconsideration of her informal PEB proceedings.  She also elected military counsel to represent her at the formal hearing. 

On 29 January 1997, an addendum to the medical evaluation was prepared and was forwarded to the President of the PEB.  The addendum indicated that the applicant has had several months of neck and right upper extremity pain unrelieved by traction.  She was diagnosed with chronic upper back pain with degenerative joint disease of the spine with a questionable right C7 radiculopathy
(disease of nerve roots) and was referred back to the PEB. 

On 4 February 1997, the President of the informal PEB reviewed the addendum.
He indicated that the addendum did not provide any new substantive medical evidence and therefore, the Board affirmed the decisions of the informal PEB and found the applicant unfit with a disability rating of 10%.  The Board also stated that the applicant’s case was carefully reviewed, and based upon that review, the PEB finds no basis to change its decision in the applicant’s case and reaffirmed its previous findings.

After consideration of her case, she accepted the informal findings of 10% severance pay and withdrew her nonoccurrence and request for a formal board on 5 March 1997.

She continued to serve until she was honorably discharged on 28 April 1997 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 4-24b(3) for, disability with severance pay.  She had completed 13 years, 5 months, and
28 days of creditable service.

Title 10, United States Code, chapter 61, provides disability retirement or separation for a member who is physically unfit to perform the duties of his officer, rank, grade or rating because of disability incurred while entitled to basic pay.

Title 10, United States Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has an impairment rated at less than 30 percent disabling.

Army Regulation 40-501, at paragraph 3-3b(1), as amended, provides that for an individual to be found unfit by reason of physical disability, she must be unable to perform the duties of her officer, grade, rank or rating.

Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 7, physical profiling, provides that the basic purpose of the physical profile serial system is to provide an index to the overall functional capacity of an individual and is used to assist the unit commander and personnel officer in their determination of what duty assignments the individual is capable of performing, and if reclassification action is warranted.  Four numerical designations (1-4) are used to reflect different levels of functional capacity in six factors (PULHES): P-physical capacity or stamina, U-upper extremities, L-lower extremities, H-hearing and ears, E-eyes, and S-psychiatric.  Numerical designators "2" and "3" indicate that an individual has a medical condition or physical defect which requires certain restrictions in assignment within which the individual is physically capable of performing military duty.  The individual should receive assignments commensurate with her functional capacity.

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 Board noted the applicant’s contentions that her case should be reopened due to her chronic neck pain associated with headaches and loss of sensation to her right hand and that not all factors involved were introduced to the PEB.  The applicant was afforded the opportunity to appeal the PEB’s decision; however, she withdrew her nonconcurrence and request for a formal hearing and accepted the informal findings of 10% severance pay.

2.  The applicant was properly evaluated by competent medical authority and diagnosed with chronic back pain with degenerative joint disease of the thoracic spine, which was incurred while entitled to basic pay and was service aggravated as a result of performing her duties.

3.  The evidence of record clearly indicates that she was properly evaluated by the appropriate medical boards and found not fit for duty by a PEB.  The applicant concurred with the findings of the PEB and was administratively discharged in accordance with applicable laws and regulation with no indication of any violation of her rights.

4.  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.

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

RVO____  JMA____  MW______  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999021178	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990812	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19970428	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  178		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.