MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           18 March 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC93-06367D
                                              AR1999023841

	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	
	Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James M. Alward		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		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 response to the Board’s Reconsideration Project that her records be corrected to by showing that she was separated from active duty due to physical disability.

APPLICANT STATES:  That the vaginal cancer that was diagnosed after her separation was unrelated to the cancer she had in 1974.  That the cancer was not diagnosed because of improper medical care by the Army doctors.  That she received the Meritorious Service Medal for her performance of duty in spite of severe pain.  That she was denied CHAMPUS by not being medically retired and that now she is uninsurable.  She submits a letter from her doctor, an associate professor of gynecologic oncology to the effect that the two cancers are unrelated.  

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of her case on 29 March 1995 (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant’s contentions concerning inadequate medical care and the doctors letter are new argument and evidence, requiring Board consideration.

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.  Whether or not the 1991 cancer is or is not properly considered to be related to her earlier cancer is irrelevant and its discussion in the advisory opinion obtained at the time of her original application was superfluous. 

2.  The applicant was performing her duty at the time of separation, as evidenced by the MSM, and the fact that she did so despite pain is irrelevant.  Her service was not interrupted by her medical condition and had she chosen to do so she could have remained on active duty.

3.   Her situation is, indeed, unfortunate, but her case is, properly, being handled by the VA.  

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

__JMA__  ___KYF__  __EWL_   DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC93-06367D
AC1999023841	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990318	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.04	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.