MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:           13 March 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000049759

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell 		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, the applicant requests an increase in the percentage of his physical disability rating of 30 percent.   

APPLICANT STATES:  That no rating was given for his injuries to his spine, and no attention given to related deterioration.  The Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) did not properly consider his problems with his left index finger, left knee, cervical spine, related thoracic region damage, and diabetes.  Additionally, he is experiencing neck pain as well.

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

The applicant served on active duty in the Navy and was released from active duty on 18 December 1967.  He had 2 years, 10 months, and 5 days of service, and 10 months of other service.  He enlisted in the Army Reserve on                 18 March 1977.

In a 25 October 1978 letter, a doctor at the Neurologic Institute in New York City stated that the applicant was hospitalized on 30 September and 22 October 1978 because of his low back syndrome, and had intermittent back and leg pain following an automobile accident nine years ago.  That letter indicated that he underwent surgery on 5 October 1978 and degenerated discs were removed at the L4-5 and L5-S1 levels, and consequently, extensive operation fusion was performed from L4 to the upper sacrum.  Post operatively, there was slow but continued progress with ambulation.  He was discharged to continue his convalescence.  The doctor stated that in the near future it was likely that unusual physical exertion or stress would aggravate his condition.  That same doctor stated on 28 January 1988 that the applicant underwent a lumbar laminectomy for a herniated disc in 1978, and did extremely well following the procedure and returned to normal activities.

A 14 July 1989 report of medical examination indicates that the applicant was not qualified for enlistment in the Army National Guard.  His physical profile serial was 1 1 3 1 1 1.  A waiver of his defects was recommended.  That waiver was apparently approved.  

A 19 September 1992 medical report from the St. Elizabeth Hospital emergency department in Utica, New York shows that the applicant was a somewhat difficult patient, who was hit by a car, but insisted on taking off his collar despite a warning not to, and by getting off the board.  That report indicated that the applicant stated that a car going 45 miles per hour hit him in the left leg and he fell onto the hood.  The car stopped immediately, and he did not go over the car or break its windshield or hit its windshield.  The applicant’s condition was diagnosed as posterior fusion in the lower lumbar spine with no evidence of complication or acute abnormality; a slight narrowing in the medial compartment.  No fracture or destructive lesion was seen in the left knee/left tibia/fibula, and the remainder of the tibia and fibula were within normal limits.  There were minimal arthritic changes.  The applicant’s lung fields were clear, and the left ventricle was prominent but pulmonary vascularity was not engorged.  There was no acute disease.  There was no evidence of fracture or dislocation of the pelvis.  The regional bones were intact.  He had a normal pelvis.  There was no evidence of fracture or malalignment of the cervical spine.  The vertebrae and intervertebral disc spaces were normally visualized.  A memorandum from the applicant to the New York Army National Guard concerning his line of duty injury indicates that he was reporting to his duty station when he was hit by the vehicle at 1345 hours on 19 September 1992, which caused minor bruises, sprains, and contusions, and subsequent chest pains.  That memorandum indicates that the applicant was interviewed and observed at the emergency room, x-rays ordered, evaluation made, and diagnosis and medication suggested.  He was released at 1630 hours on that date.      

A 14 January 1997 MRI of the applicant’s cervical spine indicates a diagnosis of degenerative cervical spondylosis at C5-6 with a fairly prominent posterior osteophytic ridge; bilateral mild onchovertebral spurring and mild facet disease.  There was also mild degenerative cervical spondylosis at C6-7.  The ventral subarachnoid space was partially effaced at those two levels but there was no cord compression.  An MRI of his lumbar spine indicates a diagnosis of a disc space narrowing at L4-5 and L5-S1 with prior posterior fusion between L4, L5, and the sacrum.  Though the thecal sac was not distorted, on several contiguous images, several of the lumbar roots appeared to be clumped, suggesting arachnoiditis.  There was no evidence of recurrent disc herniation or significant epidural scar formation.  

A 19 February 1997 MEB narrative summary indicates that the applicant was recommended for an MEB by both his New York Army National Guard commander, and the Fort Drum medical troop facility.  He was examined on       14 December 1996.  That examination revealed that the applicant had complained of fatigue and exhaustion secondary to his diabetes, work requirements, hypertension, low back pain, high cholesterol, and exposure to hepatitis B.  The applicant stated that he could not drive more than 30 minutes without having to stop due to blurred vision, fatigue, or having to urinate.  He was unable to meet mission requirements, and his current medication was not sufficient to control his blood sugar level, which left him weak and tired.  The pressures of recruiting made him feel continually depressed.  He became dazed, confused, and fatigued with prolonged use of the computer screen.  The stress of working 12 plus hours a day left him drained and affected his family life.  His past medical conditions included bladder diverticulosis with operation and removal in  March 1989; oblique fracture of the left third finger, repaired in September 1989; hepatitis B exposure, antibody positive, August 1990; left leg injury, hit by a car while on duty, with associated chest and back pains as a result,             September 1992; left knee surgery, November 1995; hypertension,          February 1996; type II diabetes, February 1996; back fusion affected by exercise and extreme weather, complicated by arthritis, initial surgery in October 1979; and hyprcholesterolemia, February 1996.  Laboratory and x-ray data showed, among other things, that an EKG revealed a sinus bradycardia rate of 59, no ST changes or signs of ischemia.  His chest x-ray was within normal limits.  An MRI of the lumbar spine performed in January 1997 was significant for disc space narrowing at the L4, L5 and the L5-S1 levels consistent with prior fusion of L4 and L5 suggestive of arachnoiditis, no evidence of recurrent disc herniation at that time.  A cervical MRI was significant for cervical spondylosis at the C5, C6 interspace with prominent posterior osteophytic ridge, bilateral vertebral spurring and mild facet disease.  There was also degenerative cervical spondylosis         at C6, C7.  There was no cord compression at that point.

On 5 March 1997 an MEB diagnosed his condition as type II diabetes mellitus, on oral hypoglycemics; hypercholesterolemia, medically acceptable; hypertension, medically acceptable; chronic low back pain that existed prior to service, but was permanently aggravated by service; hepatitis B exposure, with antibodies positive level, medically acceptable; chronic fatigue; and left knee meniscectomy, medically acceptable.  

The MEB indicated that he could run at his own pace and distance, two miles three times per week, and that his profile should not prevent him from doing all activities.  He was limited to - at own pace and distance, unlimited walking, unlimited bicycling, and unlimited swimming.  He was allowed to wear a backpack, wear a helmet, carry a rifle, fire a rifle, march up to 6 miles, and lift up to 30 pounds.  Physical training test was for walking, push-ups, and sit-ups.

The MEB recommended that the applicant be referred to a PEB.  The findings and recommendation of the board were approved.  The applicant concurred. 

On 14 April 1997 a PEB determined that the applicant’s medical condition prevented his satisfactory performance of duty, because of type II diabetes mellitus on oral hypoglycemics; and chronic low back pain status post L4-L5 spinal fusion, that existed prior to service, permanent service aggravation.  The PEB indicated that the Medical Evaluation Board’s other diagnoses were not unfitting, and not ratable.  The PEB determined that his conditions had not stabilized to the point that a permanent degree of severity could be determined, and recommended that he be placed on the temporary disability retired list (TDRL) with a 30 percent disability rating.  The PEB informed him that although his disability was rated at 30 percent, he would actually be in receipt of              50 percent of his retired pay until removed from the TDRL.  The applicant did not concur and requested a formal hearing.  

On 12 May 1997 the applicant made a statement concerning his 1992 vehicle accident, saying that after he was released from the hospital he felt better, and was just sore; however, over the next three years his knee began to give him a lot of pain during physical training, and he was experiencing back and chest pain. His knee was repaired during an operation on 9 November 1995.  On                   1 April 1996 during a stress test, he collapsed, and was told that it was because of his high blood pressure.  He was given medication and returned to work.  Subsequently, he was recommended for an MEB, given an MRI of his spine, which disclosed that he had damage to his C4-C5 vertebrae and neck vertebrae.   
A 13 May 1997 report of investigation indicates that the applicant was hit by a car while walking in a parking lot on 19 September 1992.  The medical diagnosis indicated no fracture or destructive lesion, but some muscular pain.  The report was approved on 3 June 1997. 

The applicant was discharged at Fort Drum, New York on 16 July 1997 and placed on the TDRL.  He had over 11 years of active service, and almost          11 years of inactive service.  

A 29 April 1998 VA memorandum shows that the applicant was being treated for hypertension, hyperlipidemics (sic), osteoarthritis of the cervical spine and also lumbar spine, and degenerative disc and joint disease, and polyarthralgics (sic), among other ailments.  That memorandum indicates that those problems were chronic and would require long standing monitoring and treatment.

An 18 May 1998 MRI of the cervical spine shows that at the C5-6 and C6-7 intervertebral levels there were posterior vertebral body osteophytes, anular bulges, and small central essentially contained disc herniations possibly containing areas of calcification.  The neural foramina were narrowed bilaterally at the C5-6 intervertebral levels from uncinate process spurs.   

In a 15 May 1998 letter the VA informed the applicant that his service connected diabetes mellitus was 20 percent disabling, his hypertension 10 percent disabling, his status post discectomy and fusion of the lumbar spine with history of chronic low back pain, 10 percent disabling, his status post meniscectomy of the left knee, 10 percent disabling, and his oblique fracture, 3d finger, left hand,   0 percent disabling.  It informed him that his service connected prostatitis and his residuals of a left foot injury, which were both 0 percent disabling, had been confirmed and continued.  It also informed him that his hypercholesterolemia and/or hepatitis B exposure with antibodies positive, chronic fatigue, status post diverticulosis of the bladder, left leg injury with associated chest pain, and nervous condition, were not service connected.   

A 17 June 1998 MRI provided four views of the right hand and wrist.  The report indicated that the soft tissue and osseous structures were normal.  There was no foreign body, degenerative change, or fracture.  The diagnosis was negative for his right hand and wrist. 
The applicant was examined for his neck, low back and his lower extremities on 23 July 1998.  During that examination, the applicant stated that he injured his low back when he fell off a deck of a ship in 1967, sustaining minor injuries, and that in February 1969 he was involved in a motor vehicle accident and sustained an injury to his low back and was off work for three weeks.  In 1978 he was employed by the New York City Police Department and was involved in an altercation and sustained a back injury, and in 1979 he underwent spine fusion at the L4-5 and S1 at the Columbia Presbyterian Hospital in New York City.  After a year off work, he returned to restricted duty and was retired from the police force. In 1992 he was involved in a vehicle accident, and he stated that prior to that accident his low back was not bothering him at all, but afterward, his low back symptoms recurred, and he was also discovered to be a noninsulin dependent diabetic.  It was also discovered that he had high blood pressure.  When he was struck by the vehicle in the left knee, he had arthroscopic surgery of the left knee with removal of meniscal tear.  The applicant stated his ailments included pain in his right shoulder and right hand, difficulty in swallowing, blurring of his vision and frequent headaches.  He stated that his knees locked when he was standing, and the right knee collapsed on occasions.  He stated that he had difficulty standing, but his most difficult position was that of sitting.  His condition was diagnosed as status post lumbar fusion; status post arthroscopic meniscectomy of the left knee, and cervical spondylosis, possible radiculopathy.  The examining physician stated that his diabetes was under control, and he presumed his hypertensive vascular disease was also under control.  He stated that his lumbar spine condition was probably stable, and he had reached maximum medical improvement with regard to his lumbar spine.  He recovered from the knee injury for which he had surgery.  The doctor stated that the applicant was developing cervical spondylosis and possibly a disk herniation in the cervical area, and that condition was not stable.  He stated that he believed the cervical spine condition was progressive.  The cervical and lumbar spine conditions were severe.  

A 28 July 1998 MRI obtained multiple views of the cervical spine including flexion and extension views, multiple views of the lumbosacral spine, and the pelvis.  The diagnoses were degenerative change, which was most marked at the C5-6 level with bilateral neuroforaminal narrowing greatest at that level; status post spinal fusion from L4 to S1 with mild degenerative change above the fusion level; and a defect in the left iliac bone consistent with site of bone graft harvest.  The diagnoses indicated that there might be mild sclerosis of the left SI joint.  They continued by stating that the hip joints were well maintained; and a rounded density was noted in the right hemipelvis consistent with phlebolith.

On 2 September 1998 a PEB determined that the applicant was physically unfit because of his diabetes mellitus controlled on oral hypoglycemics (20 percent disability rating), and his chronic low back pain status post L4/L5 (10 percent disability rating), and recommended a permanent disability retirement with a      30 percent disability rating.  His knee condition and cervical spondylosis were not rated.  The applicant did not concur and demanded a formal hearing.

On 5 October 1998 the PEB at Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) informed the applicant that his rebuttal to the 2 September 1998 informal PEB did not provide information as to any new diagnosis or changes in his currently rated disability, and the board affirmed the decision of the informal PEB that found him unfit with a disability rating of 30 percent.  He was further informed that on TDRL reevaluations, he could only be rated for conditions which were unfitting at the time he was initially placed on the TDRL, and that his cervical spine problems that he mentioned were not diagnosed unfitting conditions at that time and could not be rated.  He was also informed that although he had presented no new objective evidence, his case was carefully reviewed, and the board found no basis for a change in its actions, and reaffirmed its previous findings.

In a 9 November 1998 letter to the applicant the PEB informed him that his second letter of rebuttal to the informal PEB did not provide information as to any changes in the conditions for which he was placed on the TDRL, and the PEB affirmed the decision of the informal PEB.

A 10 November 1998 MRI of the applicant’s lumbosacral spine shows that the applicant’s condition was diagnosed as status post spinal fusion from L4 to S1.  The fusion masses appeared intact.  There was disc space narrowing at L4-5 and probable fusion at L5-S1.  There were mild degenerative changes present at L2-3 and L3-4.  Moderate degenerative changes were also noted in the visualized portion of the lower thoracic spine.  There was no evidence of acute fracture or subluxation.  His condition was further diagnosed as status post spinal fusion from L4 to S1 with mild degenerative change above the fusion level. An MRI of the applicant’s pelvis shows that his condition was diagnosed as status post posterior spinal fusion.  Defect was noted in the left iliac bone consistent with site of bone graft harvest.  There could be mild sclerosis of the left ST joint. The hip joints were well maintained.  A rounded density was noted in the right hemipelvis consistent with phlebolith.

On 19 November 1998 a formal PEB determined that his diabetes mellitus controlled on oral hypoglycemics and his chronic low back pain status post L4/L5 fusion, which was stable, made him unfit to perform the duties of his specialty.  His diabetes was rated at 20 percent disability under VASRD Code 7913, and his chronic low back pain rated at 10 percent under VASRD code 5299-5295.  The board stated that his knee and cervical spondylosis was not ratable (These were not unfitting conditions at the time of his placement on the TDRL).  The board recommended permanent disability retirement with a 30 percent disability rating. 
The applicant nonconcurred, stating that the injury that he sustained on              19 September 1992 resulted in knee and cervical spine injuries which were shown during an MRI in January 1997, and were diagnosed as being unacceptable by an Army major at WRAMC in April 1997, and subsequently at the formal hearing on 19 November 1998.

In a 15 December 1998 rebuttal to the formal hearing the applicant commented on his diabetes condition, stating that his condition had not diminished but had worsened, and that while medication has been used to control sugar level, it has diminished the quality of his life, and that significant symptoms had been overlooked, fitting the criteria of VASRD codes 7908, 7909, 7911, and 7916.  He stated that his diabetes condition should be reevaluated.  The applicant also stated that x-rays and other information concerning his chronic low back pain was not taken into account by the PEB.  He also stated that x-rays of his lumbosacral spine and pelvis were not taken into account, and that his pain was not mild, but in fact, severe.   

On 31 December 1998 the PEB at WRAMC informed the applicant that his rebuttal to the formal hearing had been considered but it did not provide information as to any new diagnosis or changes in his current rated disability, and affirmed the decision of the formal PEB.  He was further informed that his diabetes mellitus was appropriately rated and that soldiers were rated for only those conditions for which they were placed on the TDRL; consequently his knee and cervical spine were not rated.  

On 14 January 1999 the Physical Disability Agency informed the applicant that it had noted his disagreement with the findings of the PEB, and had reviewed his entire case file.  That agency concluded that his case was properly adjudicated and the PEB’s findings and recommendations were supported by substantial evidence and were therefore affirmed.  He was informed that he might be eligible for medical care through the VA and that he could apply for a disability rating from the VA.  The Physical Disability Agency informed him that the Department of Defense operating under a different set of laws that the VA, could only compensate soldiers for any service connected or permanently aggravated conditions that caused their separation and only for the degree of impairment at the time of their separation.

On 19 January 1999 the Physical Disability Agency informed a member of congress (MC) that the formal PEB on 19 November 1998, while finding that the applicant’s medical condition had improved and stabilized, still found him physically unfit, recommending permanent retirement with a 30 percent disability rating.  He disagreed and submitted a rebuttal, and as a result that agency reviewed the PEB findings, and finding no error or injustice, affirmed the findings on 14 January 1999.  The MC was further informed that while the applicant was on the TDRL with a disability rating of 30 percent,  he was entitled to receive at a minimum 50 percent of his basic active duty pay; however once removed from the TDRL, and permanently retired with the same 30 percent rating, he was only entitled to 30 percent of his pay.
Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army physical disability evaluation system and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating.  It provides for medical evaluation boards, which are convened to document a soldier’s medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is affected by the soldier’s status.  A decision is made as to the soldier’s medical qualifications for retention based on the criteria in AR 40-501, chapter 3.  If the MEB determines the soldier does not meet retention standards, the board will recommend referral of the soldier to a PEB.

Physical evaluation boards are established to evaluate all cases of physical disability equitability for the soldier and the Army.  It is a fact finding board to investigate the nature, cause, degree of severity, and probable permanency of the disability of soldiers who are referred to the board; to evaluate the physical condition of the soldier against the physical requirements of the soldier’s particular office, grade, rank or rating; to provide a full and fair hearing for the soldier; and to make findings and recommendation to establish eligibility of a soldier to be separated or retired because of physical disability.

Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 7-2, provides that an individual may be placed in a TDRL status for a maximum period of 5 years when it is determined that the individual is qualified for disability retirement under Title 10, United States Code, section 1201, but for the fact that his or her disability is not stable and the individual may recover and be fit for duty, or the degree of severity may increase or decrease so as to warrant a change in the disability rating.

Army Regulation 635-40, Appendix B, paragraph B-1, provides that Congress established the VASRD as the standard under which percentage rating decisions are to be made for disabled military personnel.  Such decisions are to be made according to title IV of the Career Compensation Act of 1949 (title IV is now mainly codified in title 10, United States Code, section 61).

The VASRD is primarily a guide in the evaluation of disability resulting from all types of disease and injuries encountered as a result of or incident to military service.  The percentage ratings represent as far as can practicably be determined the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from such diseases and injuries and their residual conditions in civil occupations.  Generally, the degrees of disability specified are considered adequate to compensate for considerable loss of working time from exacerbations or illnesses proportionate to the severity of the several grades of disability.  For the application of this schedule, accurate and fully descriptive medical examinations are required, with emphasis upon the limitation of activity imposed by the disabling condition.  Over a period of many years, a veteran’s disability claim 

may require reratings in accordance with changes in laws, medical knowledge and his or her physical or mental condition.  It is thus essential, both in the examination and in the evaluation of disability, that each disability be viewed in relation to its history.

The VASRD for diabetes mellitus, code 7913, provides for five disability ratings – one of which is a 20 percent rating for an individual requiring insulin and restricted diet, or; oral hypoglycemic agent and restricted diet.  Another, a 40 percent rating, for an individual requiring insulin, restricted diet, and regulation of activities.

The VASRD for lumbosacral strain with characteristic pain on motion (chronic low back pain), code 5295, as modified by Appendix B to Army Regulation 635-40, provides for a rating that begins at 0 percent.  Demonstrable pain on spinal motion or discovery of back pain etiology will warrant a 10 percent rating unless paravertebral muscle spasms are also present, in which case a 20 percent rating will be awarded.

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 office, rank, grade or rating because of disability incurred while entitled to basic pay.

Title 10, United States Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rated at least 30 percent.

Title 38, United States Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service.  The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned.  Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency.

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 diabetes mellitus and his chronic low back pain conditions were properly rated in accordance with the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities.  His retirement with a 30 percent disability rating was appropriate.  The Board notes that the VA awarded the applicant the same 20 percent disability rating for his diabetes mellitus and the same 10 percent rating for his chronic low back pain as awarded by the PEB. 

2.  Notwithstanding the applicant’s contentions, his problems with his cervical and lumbar spine were considered by the MEB, as was his knee condition.  His chronic low back pain was determined to be unfitting.  His knee condition was determined to be medically acceptable.  His cervical spondylosis was not ratable. 
The applicant concurred with the findings and recommendation of the MEB.

3.  Although the VA has awarded the applicant a 10 percent disability rating for his status post meniscectomy of his left knee, this condition was not considered unfitting by either the informal or formal PEBs.  Nonetheless, the Board notes that any rating action by the VA does not necessarily demonstrate any error or injustice in the Army rating.  The VA, operating under its own policies and regulations, assigns disability ratings as it sees fit.  Any rating action by the VA does not compel the Army to modify its rating.

4.  An award of a VA rating does not establish entitlement to medical retirement or separation.  The VA is not required to find unfitness for duty.  Operating under its own policies and regulations, the VA awards ratings because a medical condition is related to service, i.e., service-connected.  Furthermore, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings.  
  
5.  The applicant has undergone numerous medical evaluations, his condition has been evaluated by an MEB and by three PEBs, one of which was a formal PEB, during which he appeared and was represented by counsel.  He has appealed the results of the PEB findings and recommendations, and his appeals have been adequately answered.  He has provided no medical evidence to show that the findings of the PEBs were unfair or unjust, or that the percentage of  disability ratings was inadequate. 

6.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.   

7.  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 that requirement.

8.  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

___dph__  ___jh___  ___jtm___  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000049759	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010313	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  177	108.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.