PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           13 February 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002069375

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire		Member	
	Mr. Robert J. Osborn, II		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A -  Application for correction of military 
                             records
	Exhibit B -  Military Personnel Records (including
	                  advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that the reason for his release from active duty (REFRAD) and retirement be changed from voluntary early retirement to retirement due to a physical disability.  

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that on 7 November 2001, a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) found him physically unfit for further service and recommended a combined disability rating of 0 percent.  It also recommended that his disposition be separation with severance pay.  However, because he had between 15 and 20 years of service, he was offered the opportunity to elect separation for disability or to apply for, and if approved, a non-disability retirement under Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA).  He elected to request retirement under TERA and on 31 December 2001, he was voluntarily retired under this authority.

4.  The applicant also states that at one point during the processing of his case, the PEB returned his disability case and requested additional information that was needed before proceeding with its evaluation.  Three pieces of information were requested, pharmacy records showing the medications he had been prescribed and had received, a description of his current duties, and an explanation as to why he was still receiving flight pay if he were grounded for medical reasons.  A response to these questions and copies of his pharmacy records were forwarded to the PEB as requested.  

5.  The applicant claims that the final PEB decision he received indicated the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) codes that applied to his medical condition were 7512 and 7527.  However, because the PEB had insufficient relevant information to assign a percentage of disability in his case, it assigned a 0 percent rating.  It was further explained that a 0 percent disability rating did not mean he did not have a disability, but simply meant the required information to assign a rating was not available.  

6.  The applicant questions why the PEB did not request the information needed to establish a rating, given it had requested additional information earlier in the process when it was needed.  He claims that if the PEB had asked for this information, it would have been provided it in the form of an addendum to the original medical dictations that were provided for the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).   Subsequent to receiving the PEB decision, he requested such an addendum, and it is attached along with the original dictations that were presented to the MEB.  He states that he suffers from frequency of urination, which is the focus of VASRD codes used by the PEB, and is mentioned several times throughout the dictations made for the MEB.  However, the number of times per hour/day and night were not initially specified in the dictations, but are key to assigning a disability rating percentage.  This frequency is addressed in the latest addendum he now provides.  

7.  The applicant also indicates that he was informed by his physician that a normal bladder has a protective membrane which coats the bladder wall and protects it from direct contact with the waste.  However, in his case, the protective membrane is not present and there is direct contact.  In addition, at this time, his condition is a non-curable disease of the bladder that causes microscopic ulcers and bleeding (primarily) and frequency of urination as a result of urological malfunctions.  The specific problems he suffers from as a result of his condition are as follows:  extreme frequency of urination, less than an hour apart during the day and sleep interruptions a minimum of 5 to 6 times per night; mild incontinence (If bathroom isn’t immediately available); and a decrease in sexual abilities due to erectile dysfunction, which is a permanent condition. 

8.  The applicant claims that the VASRD codes 7512 and 7527 address voiding dysfunctions and frequency of urination as a result of urological disorders.  In his case, he also suffers from constant bladder pain from the disease itself and increased pain associated with eating because the weight of the bladder prevents him from enjoying a full meal.  Rather that eating regular meals with his family, he snacks on smaller items to avoid putting too much pressure on his bladder.  Further, he is unable to play with his children or go on long walks with his family because he is unable to exert himself without causing a great deal of pain in his bladder.  He comments that perhaps the worst part is that no medication has shown promise of relief from this constant pain with the exception of Valium, which he can only take at night for obvious reasons.  He has to deal with the pain throughout the day with no medicinal aid.  When he takes Valium, it causes drowsiness and robs him of the ability to enjoy evenings with his family.  

9.  In addition to the loss of his military and flight career, his TERA retirement does not provide nearly as much compensation as he believes he deserves.  In order to make up the difference and to maintain a decent standard of living, he has to work two civilian jobs.  He teaches computer programming courses for Campbell University on Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina, in the evenings.  However, since his pain increases as the day progresses, it is at its height during lecture hours, which makes teaching painful and very difficult.  

10.  The applicant contends that the Army regulation governing the disability processing system states that once the PEB had determined a member is unfit to perform duties in his grade and specialty, it will use the VASRD codes to assign a disability percentage rating.  The VASRD codes used in his case were 
7512 and 7527, which authorize a disability rating of 40 percent when the frequency of urination is at less than hourly intervals or sleep interruptions are in excess of 5 times per night.  The medical dictations and additional information provided to the PEB in his case did not address his frequency of urination.  It focused on the disease, the medications, surgical corrections that had been attempted, and recommendations from his physicians for a medical retirement.  
11.  The applicant states that the PEB did not have the information it needed to assign a percentage of disability in his case.  However, had it been requested, an addendum to the medical dictation would have been provided that addressed his frequency of urination.  With that information, the PEB would have had no choice but to assign a disability rating of 40 percent and grant him a medical retirement. 

12.  The applicant claims that rather than ask for the needed medical information, the PEB ruled in favor of disability and assigned a 0 percent disability rating.  As a result of that ruling, and given the TERA authority was due to expire, he was forced not to appeal and/or ask for reconsideration of the PEB ruling.  If he had appealed the PEB decision, he may have missed the opportunity to retire.  He was advised by the PEB Liaison Officer (PEBLO) at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, to take the TERA retirement because regardless of the medical dictation addendums provided, the PEB might still give the same ruling.  After consulting with his family and his brigade commander, he decided to elect the safer alternative and retire under the TERA.  In order to retain as much of his military benefits as he could and to provide support for his family, he felt he had no choice but to accept this option. 

13.  The applicant also indicates that while serving on active duty, based on his flight status and service as an Apache (AH-64) Pilot, he was receiving a bonus. He was paid this bonus in annual installments of $12,000, which were paid each October for the coming year.  The bonus contract specifically stated that if he breached his contact on a voluntary basis, the Army would recover the bonus on a pro rated basis.  However, if the contract were breached for medical or other reasons, the Aviation Career Pay (ACP) entitlement would stop immediately, but did not require recovery of any of the paid bonus by the Army.  

14.  The applicant also claims that prior to the MEB proceedings, he was assured by Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) officials that his bonus would not be recovered if he were found unfit for service by the PEB.  Since his retirement, he has been notified that because he retired voluntarily under TERA, and not for physical disability, he breached his aviation bonus agreement and the government would recoup the remainder of the bonus.  As a result of his retirement under TERA, the DFAS system sees him as a voluntary early retirement, and the code assigned is the same for everyone retiring under these provisions.  Although the TERA was used by him after he was found unfit for duty, the unfit part does not appear in his orders or other retirement documents.  

15.  The applicant states that he was done an injustice by the PEB.  It should have requested the medical information needed to assign a percentage in his case.  Had this been done, based on the VASRD codes 7512 and 7527 that were applicable in his case, the PEB would have had to assign him a disability rating of at least 40 percent, and offer him a medical retirement based on the applicable regulatory guidance.  This action would increase his retirement income and negate the debt he owes the government.  

16.  The applicant concludes by indicating that he disagrees with the PEB findings in his case.  He now requests that this Board adjudicate his case, and that his retirement status be changed to show he retired based on a permanent disability, with the appropriate disability percentage assigned.  

17.  The applicant’s military records show that on 23 October 2001, a PEB convened at Washington D.C. to evaluate his case.  The PEB found that he was physically unfit to perform duties in his grade and specialty.  As a result, it recommended a combined physical disability rating of 0 percent and a disposition of separation with severance pay.  

18.  The PEB Proceedings (DA Form 199) indicated that the VASRD codes applicable to the applicant’s medical condition were 7512 and 7527.  The description of the applicant’s disability was recorded as Chronic Interstitial Cystitis and Prostatitis, which responded poorly to treatment.  It further indicated that the condition was rated at 0 percent because the applicant did not meet the minimum rating criteria under voiding dysfunction nor urinary tract infections.  

19.  The PEB proceedings also indicated that ratings of less than 30 percent for soldiers with less than 20 years of active service required separation with severance pay in lieu of retirement.  However, Department of Defense (DOD) guidance required that members with a disposition of separation for physical disability who had 15 but less than 20 years of active service would be afforded the opportunity to elect separation for physical disability or to apply for 
non-disability retirement under the TERA.  

20.  The applicant did not make a formal choice or sign in the election of soldier portion of the DA Form 199.  However, he did insert a written statement at the bottom of the form, which was dated 7 November 2001, that indicated that he disagreed with the disability rating of 0 percent, but that he intended to apply for retirement under TERA.

21.  Orders Number 353-0256, dated 19 December 2001, published by Headquarters, XVIII Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg, North Carolina, authorized the applicant’s retirement on 31 December 2001, and his placement on the Retired List on 1 January 2002.  The authority for his retirement was listed as Title 10 of the United States Code, sections 1293 and 1371, and the reason was voluntary retirement.  

22.  On 31 December 2001, the applicant was released from active duty for the purpose of retirement after completing a total of 15 years, 4 months, and 12 days of active military service.  The DD Form 214 issued to him at this time indicated that the authority for his separation was chapter 6, Army Regulation 600-8-24, and the narrative reason for his separation was voluntary early retirement.  The Separation Program Designator (SPD) code listed in Item 26 (Separation Code ) of this document was RBE.

23.  The applicant provides a medical addendum to a MEB consult that had been previously dictated.  It was prepared by his physician at Womack Army Medical Center (WAMC), Fort Bragg, on 13 November 2001, and added an addendum to the Focused History of Present Illness portion of the original dictation.  It stated, in pertinent part, that the “patient currently voids approximately every hour and voids anywhere from 5-8 times at night.”  

24.  In connection with the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was requested of and received from the Deputy Commander, USAPDA.  It indicates that the applicant was referred into the Physical Disability Evaluation System (DES) after he was removed from flight status.  This removal was based on his use of the prescription drug Valium, which he used to control his pain from interstitial cystitis and prostatitis.  He comments that although the applicant appeared to have had several problems resulting from the two noted diagnoses, the case file clearly supports that the ultimate cause of his referral into the DES was the incompatibility of Valium use with flight duties.  

25.  The advisory opinion further indicates that after the applicant’s referral into the DES, a MEB revealed that his chief complaint was pain.  He also complained of increases in the frequency and the urgency of urination, but several urodyamic studies showed no significant abnormalities in his ability to void or to sustain his urinary functions.  Urinary frequency was not mentioned as a basis for his inability to perform his military duties in the MEB record, his medical profile, several commander’s statements, or in an MEB addendum.  In addition, the applicant provided no information regarding any frequency problems and concurred in all aspects of the MEB and the commander’s comments.  

26.  The advisory opinion further indicates that the PEB found the applicant jointly unfit for both cystitis and prostatitis, awarded zero percent disability, and recommended separation with severance pay.  Although the PEB would not normally find two diagnosis jointly unfitting and ratable, the facts of the applicant’s case supported these findings.  The applicant’s chief complaint was pain and no definitive medical guidance or findings could specify which of the diagnosis, if not both, were causing the applicant’s problems.  To rate them separately would have been considered unauthorized pyramiding.  Since the applicant’s listed unfitting symptoms of either diagnosis did not meet the rating criteria for either voiding dysfunction, obstructed voiding, or urinary frequency, the PEB decided to combine both diagnosis.  Since the applicant was rated for pain, other regulatory provisions should be considered, and would limit any rating based on pain to a maximum of 20 percent, which would still not authorize him disability retirement.  The PEB’s decision to combine findings in the applicant’s case was supported by substantial evidence, and was not in violation of any regulation or policy, and was not arbitrary and capricious.  No new information was ever presented to the PEB or the USAPDA by any means, to include rebuttal letter from the applicant prior to the applicant waiving his disability processing and electing to retire under the provisions of the TERA.  The first time any additional information was provided was when it was forwarded with this Board’s request for an advisory opinion.

27.  The USAPDA opinion also indicates that after the PEB’s findings, the applicant was counseled on the findings, and the options available, and he voluntarily elected to retire under the provisions of the TERA.  At that time, he was entitled to a formal hearing and/or to submit a rebuttal letter explaining why the PEB’s informal findings were incorrect, but he elected to do neither.  Even had the PEB increased his rating to 40 percent, the maximum amount under urinary frequency, such a finding would have also included placement on the TDRL, as his condition was not stable enough for rating purposes.  A later reduction of the rating below 30 percent could have resulted in the applicant receiving no retirement of any kind because TERA no longer exists and would not be an option for the applicant.  

28.  The Deputy Commander, USAPDA, further opines that the decisions the applicant faced in the fall of 2001 were difficult ones; however, the TERA retirement was permanent, and his retired pay was almost exactly the amount as he would have received for the maximum rating for urinary frequency.  To request a formal hearing and hope for a higher rating would have been possible, but not necessarily a wise decision as he would not have actually gained any significant monthly retirement, and also he could have lost his retirement if removed from the TDRL.  Accordingly, the applicant’s decision to waive the disability process was a wise one, and may still be the best choice for him notwithstanding his petition for correction.  

29.  The information contained in the USAPDA advisory opinion confirms that the 13 November 2001 addendum was not seen by the PEB or the USAPDA until forwarded with the request for this opinion.  It further indicates that a review of the addendum reveals no new medical or testing data, it simply restates what the applicant stated to the physician about his claims of urinary frequency.  Further, it was noted that the frequency of voiding then claimed, for the first time, was the exact amount needed for the maximum rating.  It is also noted that the addendum provided no new objective urological findings.  Throughout the entire DES process the applicant never appears to have documented, discussed, or complained to commanders about the problem of urinary frequency.  All complaints were about pain, and then about the medical consequences of the medication taken to relieve the pain.  No performance documents indicate that the applicant was having problems performing his duties because of urinary frequency.  In fact, had it not been for the pain medication rendering him unable to fly, and flying being the only real duty he was qualified to do, the PEB would have found him fit for duty.  Urinary frequency was not a factor in the PEB’s decision on fitness.  Since it was not a factor in the fitness determination, it would not have been a factor in the compensation determination.  

30.  The USAPDA advisory opinion further states that a review of the facts in this case, to include the 13 November 2001 addendum, results in no recommended change to the PEB findings.  The claims of urinary frequency, balanced against the whole case file, do not provide a preponderance of the evidence that the applicant was unfit based on a symptom of urinary frequency.  Neither do they provide a preponderance of evidence that would warrant a rating of 40 percent.  Based on the reasons outlined in this opinion, the Deputy Commander, USAPDA, recommends that the applicant’s records remain unchanged, and that if the Board recommends a correction to the records that includes the applicant’s placement on the TDRL, that the applicant be fully counseled again on the possible loss of all retirement benefits should his medical condition improve while on the TDRL.

31.  The applicant was provided a copy of the USAPDA advisory opinion in order to have the opportunity to respond, which he did on 16 October 2002.  In his rebuttal, the applicant outlines the treatment he has undergone since his retirement in order to update the Board on what has happened to him since his retirement.  He realizes that these events in no way affect the PEB’s original decision, but it is instead intended to explain that his disease is not a temporary condition as the Deputy Commander, USAPDA, seems to indicate in his advisory opinion.  He claims that although he holds two civilian jobs, he is only able to do so because neither is physically demanding and both afford him the flexibility to take care of his condition.  

32.  The applicant also takes issue with the advisory opinion comments that indicate that urinary frequency was never mentioned, by the MEB, in his medical profiles, in several commander’s statements, and in an MEB addendum, as a significant factor in his ability to perform his duties.  He counters with the fact that during the conduct of his medical processing the PEB wrote him a letter and specifically questioned his current duties.  His commander responded to this letter and explained to the PEB that that he was unable to fly and was assigned other duties based on his suffering from urinary frequency.  Although the advisory opinion comments are correct in stating that he was taking Valium to combat the pain, which negated his ability to fly, and the urinary frequency was not specifically addressed to the PEB; however, frequency is indeed addressed in several medical opinion letters and in the commander’s statement, which clearly states the he was provided the pain medication in order to combat the pain he experienced as a result of an over active bladder, in his case as a result of the diagnosed diseases.  

33.  The applicant also indicates that the MEB was held in response to his contracting the diseases, not based on the side effects of his urinary frequency.  However, the urinary frequency he suffered is well documented and is indeed addressed in numerous locations throughout his medical record, to which the PEB had access during its deliberations.  In fact, he states that in his original request to this Board he pointed out that he suffered from urinary frequency, which is the focus of the VASRD codes used by the PEB to determine his disability.  Urinary frequency is also addressed throughout the medical dictations, but the number of times per hour/day was not initially specified.  In addition, he was specifically instructed to maintain a urinary frequency chart in a spreadsheet to document not only the number of times he urinated, but the amount, this information is also in his medical records.  

34.  In response to the comments contained the advisory opinion, the applicant asks how he was supposed to know, without specific medical training, that the PEB would hinge its entire decision on urinary frequency when there were so many other factors to consider in this case.  He claims that it was not until he received the PEB’s final decision that he understood that the disability rating was granted based on urinary frequency alone.  He further asks that if the PEB went out of its way to request further information before it made its final decision, why did it not request information on urinary frequency, information necessary to establish a rating,  when it did make its final decision.  

35.  In addition, the applicant states that the issue of urinary frequency had been addressed on several occasions and in several different locations, the PEB simply did not see this information.  He further comments that with much less information, the VA complied with the Army Regulation which states in effect that the percentage assigned to a medical defect or condition is the disability rating.  A rating is not assigned until the PEB determines the soldier is physically unfit for duty.  He states that he may be ignorant, but this makes it appear the PEB should have either assigned a disability rating based on the VASRD codes or obtained the information they needed prior to granting him a zero disability rating simply because they did not have the information.  

36.  The applicant also takes issue with the advisory opinion comment that indicates that his TERA retirement pay is almost equal to what his disability pay would have been because a disability retirement carries with many benefits not associated with TERA retirement pay.  The applicant further takes issue with the indication that he would have automatically been placed on the TDRL.  He claims that his condition is permanent, as indicated in all the supporting medical documents and as evidenced by the medical care he has required subsequent to his retirement.  He finally comments that he in no way is seeking placement on the TDRL.  He further comments that as indicated in the letter he has provided from his doctor, while the Neurostimulation has provided him a good deal of pain relief, it has not impacted his urinary frequency, and he still can not function normally because of the frequency of his urination.  

37.  Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (APDES) according to the provisions of chapter 61, Title 10 of the United States Code (10 USC 61). Chapter 4, section IV contains guidance on physical disability processing by the PEB.  It states, in pertinent part, that after establishing the fact that a solider is unfit because of a physical disability, and that the solider is entitled to benefits, the PEB must decide the percentage rating for each unfitting disability.  The VASRD, as modified in the regulation, is used to establish this rating.  The VASRD codes assigned to the applicant allowed for disability percentages based only on an associated voiding dysfunction. 

38.  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.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that once the PEB determined he was medically unfit for further service, a combined disability rating should have been assigned to his diagnosed disabling conditions based on the VASRD codes assigned; and that he should have been granted retirement based on a permanent physical disability based on this disabling condition.  However, it finds insufficient evidence to support these claims. 

2.  The evidence of record shows that the PEB determined that the applicant was medically unfit for further service based on his medically diagnosed conditions of “Chronic Interstitial Cystitis and Prostatitis” and that it assigned a 0 percent disability rating.  Based on these findings, the PEB recommended a disposition of disability separation with severance pay.  However, because the applicant had more than 15 years of active service, DOD guidance required that he be provided the option to request voluntary retirement under TERA rather than accept the physical disability separation recommended by the PEB.

3.  The Board finds that the PEB acted in accordance with applicable regulations in assigning the applicant a 0 percent disability rating based on the medical information and evidence it had before it at the time.  Although the PEB could have requested additional information, it was not required to do so in order to establish the applicant’s disability rating.  

4.  The applicant’s assertion that the medical addendum related to his urinary frequency was not provided to the PEB is supported by the evidence of record.  However, his claim that the 0 percent disability rating assigned by the PEB was the result of it not having information on his voiding dysfunction or urinary frequency before it is not so supported.  The PEB Proceedings clearly address the fact that laboratory data was considered noncontributory, and that the applicant did not meet the minimum rating criteria under voiding dysfunction nor urinary tract infections.  

5.  In the opinion of the Board, the PEB Proceedings show that the voiding dysfunction and urinary frequency issues were considered and addressed at the time.  This is further supported by the comments in the USAPDA advisory opinion that confirm that urodyamic studies done on the applicant at the time showed no significant abnormalities in his ability to void or to sustain his urinary functions.  Further, the USAPDA opinion also confirms that the medical addendum provided by the applicant revealed no new medical, testing data, or objective urological findings to support the urinary frequency indicated therein.  

6.  At the time of the PEB findings, the applicant still had the right to appeal the PEB rating decision and to present evidence, to include the medical addendum,  through the PEB appeal hearing process.  Any disagreement between the applicant and the PEB in regard to the disability rating should have been adjudicated and resolved through this PEB appeal process at the time.  

7.  The Board carefully considered the applicant’s claim that he elected not to appeal the PEB rating based on advise he received from the PEBLO, and because he feared losing all retirement benefits.  However, the Board finds no information provided by the applicant that shows that the information he received from the PEBLO was in error, and further it concludes that the PEBLO was obligated to ensure that he was aware of all the possible negative outcomes that could occur if he pursued an appeal of the PEB decision.  

8.  In addition, while it understands that his personal concerns were relevant to his decision, the Board finds no evidence to show he was unjustly denied the right to pursue a formal hearing appeal on the issues he now presents.  The evidence confirms that after considering all the factors involved, the applicant voluntarily elected to retire under TERA.  The Board finds that his subsequent conclusion that this was not his best option does not constitute an error or injustice in the process or in the outcome at the time.  

9.  The Board notes and does not question the validity of the applicant’s claims in regard to his physical condition nor the validity of the disability rating granted him by the VA.  However, the VA assigns disability ratings and awards compensation in accordance with its own policies and regulations solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that the said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned.  

10.  Consequently, the Board finds that the VA rating decision pertaining to the applicant does not impact the determination made by the PEB, which was accomplished in accordance with Army regulations based on the medical evidence and urodyamic studies done on the applicant at the time.

11.  Notwithstanding the Board’s conclusion that the applicant’s request that the reason for his retirement be changed from voluntary early retirement to retirement due to physical disability is not warranted, the Board does find merit in the applicant’s claim that his ACP was unjustly recouped.  

12.  Under the terms of the applicant’s ACP agreement, if he voluntarily retired prior to the completion of the ACP active duty service commitment, it would result in the unearned portion of the ACP paid being considered a debt to the Government that would be recouped on a pro rated basis.  However, if he became disqualified for aviation service due to a medical condition, his ACP would be immediately stopped, but the unearned portion paid would not be recouped.  

13.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was removed from flight status due to a medical condition that led to his processing through the APDES, and ultimately to a PEB determination that his medical condition prevented him from performing the duties of his grade and specialty.  

14.  In the opinion of the Board, the applicant’s choice of a voluntary retirement option that technically required that his ACP be recouped is not the authoritative factor on this issue.  The record clearly shows that the applicant was medically disqualified from aviation service based on the PEB determination that he was physically unfit for further service.  Further, this PEB determination was made in advance of and was actually the basis for the applicant’s voluntary retirement under TERA provisions.  

15.  Given the facts related to the applicant’s ACP issue, the Board concludes that it would serve the interest of equity and justice to correct the applicant’s record to show that he was permanently disqualified for aviation service due to a medical condition.  

16.  The Board also finds that it would be appropriate to reimburse the applicant for any ACP bonuses or special pay that was collected based on his voluntary TERA retirement, which would have been exempt from collection based on his medical disqualification from aviation service. 

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was permanently disqualified for aviation service due to a medical condition; and by reimbursing him any portion of his Aviation Career Pay bonuses or special pay that were recouped based on his voluntary retirement.  

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__RVO__  __GJW  _  __ RJO __  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		_ Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr._
		         CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002069375	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/02/13	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	2001/12/31	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	TERA	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT (PARTIAL)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.