MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           25 April 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002067285

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		Member	
	Mr. Charles Gainor		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:  Reconsideration of his request for a physical disability retirement.

APPLICANT STATES:  That in order to be removed from the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) a medical examination must be given.  None was given to him prior to reducing his rate to 10 percent and removing him from the TDRL.  As supporting evidence he provides two pages from his 15 April 1997 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) appeal in which the Board of Veterans’ Appeals opined that he ought to be given another opportunity to report for a neurological examination, one page from a VA rating decision dated 18 February 1998, and a skull x-ray.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in proceedings prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 9 September 1992 (docket number AC91-06431) and in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board’s reconsideration of his case on 7 October 1999 (docket number AR1998014148).

Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation for physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability.  Chapter 7 states that the medical treatment facility (MTF) commander is responsible for periodically re-examining a soldier on the TDRL.  It further states that the MTF commander will arrange to have the portions of the examination that cannot be accomplished at the Army MTF conducted at one of three other locations:  (1) another uniformed service MTF; (2) other Federal medical facility at, or near, the soldier’s home; or (3) civilian – operated clinic or hospital at, or near, the soldier’s home.

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.  A TDRL re-examination need not be conducted at a military MTF.  Considering the circumstances of the applicant’s placement on the TDRL as a result of Board action in 1992, the use of the VA’s 25 May 1989 examination (i.e., another Federal medical facility) granting him a 10 percent disability rating for an organic affective disorder with generalized anxiety, competent, to determine he was unfit for duty with a 10 percent disability rating effective the date he normally would have received his TDRL re-examination in December 1989 was appropriate.

2.  The 15 April 1997 Board of Veterans’ Appeals document which opined that the applicant ought to be given another opportunity to report for a neurological examination concerned the status of his condition in 1997, not his condition at the time he separated in 1988 or at the time of his “TDRL re-examination” in 1989.

3.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments, are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

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

__JL____  __GDP___  __CG____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002067285	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020425	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.