MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:            18 March 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999016823

	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. Ed Clark		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:  Presumably, physical disability retirement or separation.

APPLICANT STATES:  That less than 10 days after she was separated from active duty, she suffered a detached retina in her right eye and had two retinal tears in her left eye; and that her attending physician told her that such a severe retinal detachment would have started approximately 2 weeks before she noticed any problems (she did not provide any documentation to support that contention).

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

That, with prior enlisted service in the Army National Guard beginning in 
1991, she was appointed as a second lieutenant, USAR, on 14 May 1994 and entered active duty on 22 August 1994.  She served as a  platoon leader and as an operations officer in a signal unit.  She was promoted to the grade of first lieutenant on 28 May 1996.

On 28 May 1997, following a separation physical examination, she was separated from active duty. 

On 25 November 1997 she was notified by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) that her claims for service connection for a right eye retinal detachment and left eye retinal tears were denied.  The DVA document shows, in part, "Service medical records for the period 28 May 1991 to 28 May 1997 are completely negative for complaints, symptoms, diagnosis and treatment of eye disabilities of retinal detachment, right eye and retinal tears, left eye or related condition in military service.  Separation examination is negative for any evidence of residuals of the claimed condition either as an active condition or by history.  There is no medical evidence which establishes a nexus or link between the currently diagnosed retinal detachment, right eye and retinal tears eye condition and military service.  A careful review of the service medical records fails to reveal any symptoms or specific evidence of the claimed conditions in service."

The American Medical Association Encyclopedia of Medicine describes a retinal detachment as a separation of the light-sensitive inner surface of the back of the eye from the outer layers and is usually preceded by a retinal tear.  A retinal tear is the development of a split in the retina, usually caused by degeneration.  It may also be caused by severe injury to the eye.  Retinal detachment is painless and the symptoms are exclusively visual with the first indication being the appearance of bright flashes of light, seen at the edge of the field of vision and accompanied by floaters (tiny spots floating across the field of vision).

Army Regulation 40-501, Standards of Medical Fitness, chapter 3, provides standards for medical retention. Basically, members with conditions as severe as listed in this chapter are considered medically unfit for retention on active duty and are referred for disability processing.  A unilateral retinal tear is considering medically unfitting when it results in visual acuity which does not meet specified standards, when the visual field is constricted, when uncorrectable diplopia (double vision) exists, and when detachment results from organic progressive disease or new growth, regardless of the condition of the better eye.

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

Army Regulation 635-40, Physical Evaluation for Retirement, or Separation, paragraph 3-1, provides that the mere presence of an impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability.  In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the member reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, rank, grade or rating.

Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 3-2b(1), provides that disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to soldiers whose service is interrupted and they can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service.

Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 3-2b(2), provides that when a member is being separated by reason other than physical disability, his or her continued performance of assigned duty commensurate with his or her rank or grade until he or she is scheduled for separation or retirement creates a presumption that he or she is fit.  This presumption can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that he or she was unable to perform his or her duties for a period of time or that acute grave illness or injury or other deterioration of physical condition, occurring immediately prior to or coincident with separation, rendered the member unfit.

Title 10, United States Code, as implemented in Army Regulation 40-3, prohibits the payment of medical bills incurred by individuals after they have been separated from the service.

Title 38, United States Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the VA to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service.

Title 38, United States Code, section 3.303, provides that the term “Service connection” connotes many factors but basically it means that the facts, shown by evidence, establish that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces, or if preexisting such service, was aggravated therein.  This may be accomplished by affirmatively showing inception or aggravation during service or through the application of statutory presumptions.  Determinations as to service connection will be based on review of the entire evidence of record, with due consideration to the policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs to administer the law under a broad and liberal interpretation consistent with the facts in each individual case.”

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 review of the applicant's service medical records by the DVA shows that her records do not reflect any complaints, symptoms, diagnosis or treatment for eye conditions while she was serving on active duty.  That agency denied her service connection for the claimed eye impairments.

2.  Presuming, for the sake of argument, that the date of origin of the applicant's eye conditions preceded her separation from active duty as she contends, the criteria established by title 10, United States Code, chapter 61, have not been met.  There is no evidence of record, nor has the applicant provided sufficient evidence which would indicate that prior to or coincident with her separation from active duty she suffered from any illness or injury which was of such severity that she was rendered unable to reasonably perform the duties of her office, grade, rank or rating.  Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability retirement or separation.

3.  The applicant’s military service was not interrupted by physical disability.

4.  The applicant’s continued performance of duty raised a presumption of fitness which she has not overcome by evidence of any unfitting, acute, grave illness or injury concomitant with her separation.

5.  Absent any evidence that the claimed impairments were related to military service, there is no basis on which to consider the issue of equity regarding the payment of medical bills incurred by the applicant after she was separated from active duty.

6.  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	AC98-11796/1999016823	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	1999 March 18	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.04	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.