MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:           30 JULY 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002068022

	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:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		Member	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		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, reconsideration of his request to correct his records to reflect that he was medically discharged from the Army Reserve.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was "still under orders" when he had his aneurysm.  He notes that he was "under travel orders when the aneurysm in [his] head occurred."  He also states that as a result of the aneurysm he was physically unfit to perform his duties and was not able to "reasonably fulfill the purposes of [his] employment" with the Army Reserve.  In support of his request he submits two statements dated in 1994.  One statement is from a physician who notes the applicant's spouse will have to participate in his recovery and rehabilitation.  The second statement is from the program coordinator at a rehabilitation clinic who notes the applicant would return home "with supervision" from his spouse "because of the extent of [his] cognitive impairments."

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  In the applicant's original application to the Board (AR2001061187) he argued that he was unable to fulfill his enlistment contract because of his hospitalization in 1994 with an aneurysm.  In his most recent application he maintains that he was "still under orders" at the time the aneurysm occurred and as such, should have been discharged for medical reasons.  He also notes that the two 1994 statements confirm that he was unable to perform his military duties.  In view of the fact that he has raised a new issue in his current request, and submitted additional statements not in the record at the time, the Board has determined that reconsideration of his request is warranted.

Incorporated herein by reference are military records, which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 29 November 2001 (AR2001061187).

Records available to the Board indicate the applicant was in the hospital on 
7 March 1994 as a result of an aneurysm.  There is no indication when the aneurysm occurred, or the status of the applicant at the time of the occurrence.

The 10 March 1994 letter from the program coordinator at the rehabilitation center notes that it was "anticipated that [the applicant] will be unable to return to employment for a minimum of 12 months."  There is, however, no indication in available records, or provided by the applicant, that his condition was determined to be medically disqualifying for continued service.

The applicant's 5-year enlistment with the Army Reserve terminated on 
29 October 1994 and there is no indication the applicant attempted to pursue his military career.  At the time of the applicant's separation it appears he had approximately 13 years and 9 months of military service for pay purposes.

Title 10, United States Code provides for disability processing of Reserve Component soldiers who incur or aggravate an injury or disease in the line of duty while performing inactive or active duty for training.  

Army Regulation 635-40 states that in order for soldiers of the Reserve Components to be compensated for disabilities incurred while performing duty for 30 days or less, there must be a determination by a Physical Evaluation Board that the unfitting condition was the proximate result of performing duty.

Army Regulation 635-40 states, in effect, that Reserve Component soldiers will be separated from the Reserve when they no longer meet medical retention standards.  Such separation will be without benefits if the unfitting condition was not incurred or aggravated as the proximate result of performing annual training, active duty special work, active duty for training, or inactive duty training.

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.  There is no evidence, nor has the applicant provided any, which confirms that his medical condition was the proximate result of performing his military service, or that he was "still under orders" at the time.  As such, there is no basis to correct his records to reflect a "medical discharge," either as a medical retirement or separation.

2.  Additionally, the Board notes that while the 7 March 1994 letter, included with his original application to the Board, advises the applicant to contact the VA regarding hospitalization and compensation, it makes no mention that the condition resulted from his service in the Army Reserve or that he should contact his unit to determine if the condition disqualified him from continued service.

3.  The evidence in available records indicates the applicant was discharged upon completion of his enlistment contract.  There is no indication his records were ever submitted to a Physical Evaluation Board or that they were referred to medical officials to determine if he no longer met medical retention standards.  However, the Board notes that even if it were ultimately determined that the condition disqualified him from continued service it would not have resulted in a disability retirement or separation with entitlement to any disability compensation.  Only medical conditions, which were incurred, or aggravated by military service, qualify an individual for immediate disability compensation, and there is no evidence such was the case.

4.  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.
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

__AAO__  __KAH __  __TL____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002068022	
SUFFIX		
RECON	20020730	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
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.	108.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.