MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           20 DECEMBER 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001058709

	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. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern III		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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:  Physical disability retirement.   

APPLICANT STATES:  That he has a bipolar disorder aggravated by his military service and chronic patellofemoral syndrome to his left knee.  He states that he should receive a 30 to 50 percent rating for his bipolar disorder and a 20 percent rating for his left knee.  He states that a military psychiatrist determined that he had a definite disability for military service and a significant disability for civilian employment; however, the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) gave him only a     10 percent disability rating.  He states that he is now limping because of the problem with his left knee.  He states that the VA indicated that he had athralgia (pain in a joint) and fibromyalgia.  He has a hearing loss.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  Counsel supports the applicant’s request, stating that the Board should review all pertinent evidence to determine if his bipolar disorder and chronic left knee pain were properly rated.  Counsel requests that any reasonable doubt be resolved in the applicant’s favor.

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

The applicant’s personnel qualification record shows that he served on active duty beginning in 1973, had served in the National Guard and the Air Force Reserve, and served in the Army Reserve since 1982.  His service in the Army Reserve included Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) tours of duty, and tours of active duty for special work.  He had 7 months of service in Hungary from 1996-1997 and has completed numerous military courses.  He has a degree in sociology from Southwestern College.  The applicant was a personnel sergeant with the 1285th Logistical Support Battalion at Fort McCoy, Wisconsin, and on                  1 November 1998 he was ordered to active duty in an AGR status.  He was promoted to sergeant first class on 1 August 1999.  His 19 November 1999 chronological statement of retirement points shows that he had over 21 years of qualifying service for retired pay at age 60 through his retirement year ending date of 26 August 1999.

A 19 October 1988 physical profile report shows that the applicant had bilateral knee pain with a physical profile serial of 1 1 P3 1 1 1.  He could run at his own pace and distance and could take the alternate physical training test. 

In an 8 September 1992 report of medical history the applicant stated that his health was good.  He did not indicate that he had depression or excessive worry, trouble sleeping, or nervous trouble on that report; nor did he indicate that he had been treated for anxiety.  He did state that he had tendinitis in his knee.  The examining official indicated that the applicant had been treated for pain or pressure in his chest two years ago (occurred mostly while weight lifting) and was cleared by the VA, that he had fractured his right arm in 1960, and that he had a history of an ankle sprain dating to 1966.
A 7 September 1995 report of medical examination shows that the applicant was 
medically qualified for retention with a physical profile serial of 1 1 3 1 1 1.  That report indicated that he had patellofemoral syndrome in both knees. 

A 10 May 1996 physical profile report shows that the applicant had bilateral knee pain with a physical profile serial of 1 1 P2 1 1 1.  He had no assignment limitations and was fit for duty worldwide.

A 20 February 1997 report of medical examination indicates that the applicant was medically qualified for separation from active duty with a physical profile serial of 1 1 1 1 1 1.  In the report of medical history he furnished for the examination the applicant stated that his health was good.  He indicated that he was seen for anxiety at a VA hospital in 1988 and that he had a painful left elbow.  He indicated that he had (or had had) swollen or painful joints, hearing loss, sinusitis, a head injury, broken bones, cramps in his legs, pile or rectal disease, foot trouble, and depression or excessive worry.

A VA medical record shows that the applicant was treated for pain to his left forearm and wrist and his shoulder in December 1998 and in January 1999.  A report dated 15 June 1999 shows that he was evaluated for pain in his elbow, both wrists, finger joint, knees, and hips.  The assessment given was arthralgia multiple joints (?) palindromic rheumatism.  

A NCO evaluation report (NCOER) ending in August 1998 upon his release from active duty shows that he passed the physical training test and that the applicant’s rater felt that the applicant was a fully capable NCO who should be promoted with his peers.  A report ending in November 1998 shows that he passed the physical training test and that his rater felt that he was a fully capable NCO.  A report ending in October 1999 indicates that he did not take the physical training test due to a temporary profile for his wrist and shoulder, but that his profile did not affect his ability to perform his daily duties, but severely affected his deployability. His rater considered him a fully capable NCO, but his senior rater stated that he required additional training and experience before assignment in a position of greater responsibility, and that poor stress management resulted in his failure to perform duties during three key unit training exercises.  That report also showed that he had a temporary profile that severely affected his deployability.

A medical report from the VA Medical Clinic (VAMC) in Des Moines, Iowa shows that the applicant underwent an audiogram on 18 February 1999 because of his difficulty in hearing when on the phone and in public/crowds.  That report 

indicated that the applicant had complained of subjective hearing loss.  The examination showed hearing within the normal limits for his right ear, and essentially normal in his left ear, but that his left ear was worse than his right. 

The applicant was seen at the VA Medical Clinic (VAMC) in Des Moines, Iowa for a psychiatric evaluation on 18 March 1999 for assessment of depression.  He stated that he had a history of previous psychiatric difficulties or treatment and believed he might have been diagnosed with manic depression in 1998.  He stated that he also saw a psychiatrist at the Tomah VA in the summer of 1998.  He was diagnosed as having a bipolar disorder and was started on medication.

A VA medical record shows that the applicant was referred from the Fort McCoy clinic because of suicidal thoughts and homicidal thoughts - to stab one of the Reserve soldiers.  The record shows that the applicant stated that he was very stressed out during the last 11 months, was tired, and overworked; and that he was overwhelmed with the overload of work.  It indicated that the applicant complained of irregular sleep, feeling depressed, tearful and having anxiety attacks, and admitted having suicidal thoughts, but no suicidal plans.  It indicated that he reported having paranoid thoughts.  The record shows that the applicant stated that he had a history of depressed mood and anxiety for several years, was treated and placed on medication in 1984, and was hospitalized in Wichita, Kansas in 1988 with an anxiety attack.  The applicant stated that he was a patient in the Tomah VAMC mental hygiene clinic in 1988 and was placed on Tegretol, which was beneficial.  He stated that he drank alcohol four or five days a week with four or five drinks of hard liquor, and drank to intoxication over the weekends.  He complained of arthralgia; and migrating pain in his hands, knees, and hips.  He denied any other medical problems.  His condition was diagnosed as depressive disorder, not otherwise specified, rule out bipolar disorder; anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified; alcohol abuse, rule out alcohol dependence; a history of arthralgias; and psychological stressors, severe.  The applicant underwent treatment and was discharged on 23 September 1999.  The report indicated that he was feeling much better, had no homicidal or suicidal thoughts and was a lot calmer.  He had no physical limitations, but would be followed up at the Des Moines VAMC and would make his own arrangements as he had been enrolled in their care and under the care of a psychiatrist, psychologist, and therapist.    

The applicant was seen on 5 October 1999 for a rheumatology consultation.  The medical report indicated that the applicant had been having musculoskeletal pain for at least 10 years and it was an issue with him because of his military and physical fitness performance.  The examining physician stated that he saw no evidence for any arthropathy (any joint disease) or systemic rheumatologic disease.  He stated that the applicant had problems with pain in a number of areas, which could be interpreted as tendinitis or soft tissue rheumatism and that those pains did not interfere with his physical fitness or performance. 
The applicant was seen at the Des Moines VA mental health clinic for review of his psychotropic medications (drugs that affect the mind) on 6 October 1999 and he agreed to continue his use of psychotropic medication.  He complained of tendinitis during the visit, and stated that he was experiencing some periods of anxiety and depression because a relative was ill and another was dying.  He stated that he was under significant job stress and was working 40-50 hours a week.  

A 6 November 1999 medical report indicates that the applicant should be restricted to light duty during daylight hours, and that he should not participate in field training exercises nor physical training.  He should have no hazardous duty or use firearms because of his current need for psychotropic medication.  

The applicant was seen at the Des Moines VA medical center on                       28 February 2000 for a review of his psychotropic medications. The medical report of that visit shows that he had an established diagnosis of bipolar disorder. It indicated that the applicant agreed to use psychtropic medication.  It also indicated that the applicant did not appear ready to handle the advanced NCO course later in the spring because of his psychiatric status.  It indicated that he would continue to see a therapist for individual therapy. 

A 13 March 2000 VA medical record shows that the applicant was seen for problems with his hearing, and was determined to have a slight hearing problem in his left ear.

In a memorandum to the Madigan Army Medical Center on 3 May 2000 the applicant’s commanding officer stated that the applicant was physically incapable of performing his duties because of his chronic patellofemoral knee pain, resulting in a P3 profile.  That profile shows that he could do no running, jumping, marching, climbing, or crawling.  

A 19 July 2000 Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) report shows that the applicant, a sergeant first class in the Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) program, was referred because of his left knee pain.  That report shows that he had left knee pain for several years, received a P3 profile in 1988 that restricted him from running, and had no problem with this profile.  In 1996, because his Reserve unit was being deployed to Bosnia, his profile was changed to a P2 profile so he could deploy; however, the restrictions on his profile remained.  He had not taken a physical training test in over 19 months.  The applicant complained that the pain in his left knee worsened when he went up stairs rather than down.  The physical examination showed that he had no effusion, and that he had full range of motion 

of his knee from 5 degrees of hyperextension through 140 degrees of flexion.  He had negative Lachman, negative posterior drawer, negative pivot shift, no varus or valgus instability, no joint line tenderness, no meniscal signs.  Examination of his patellar apparatus showed good mobility both medially and laterally with a negative compression test.  He did complain of some very minor symptoms with patellar compression test that were only positive after questioning him about it.  Radiographic data showed an essentially normal knee with no bony abnormalities.  He had an MRI scan of his knee that showed no ligamentous injuries.  Menisci showed no evidence of a tear.  His MRI was essentially normal. The examining physician stated that he had chronic symptoms that prevented him from running, and that he also complained of chronic tendinitis and multiple other somatic complaints.  His condition was diagnosed as chronic patellofemoral pain syndrome with an otherwise normal examination and normal x-rays and normal MRI.  The MEB recommended that he be referred to a physical evaluation board (PEB).  The applicant concurred.

On 29 August 2000 a PEB found the applicant physically unfit because of his chronic left knee pain due to patellofemoral pain syndrome.  The PEB noted that he had a normal x-ray and MRI and full range of  motion without joint instability.  It also noted that his command indicated that he was unable to perform in a field environment.  The PEB stated that his functional limitations in maintaining the appropriate level of mobility, caused by his physical impairments made him unfit to perform the duties required of his rank and primary specialty.  It recommended that he receive a zero percent disability rating.  The PEB indicated that because he had been awarded a disability rating of less than 30 percent and had at least 20 qualifying years of service for Reserve retirement, he had the option of a accepting disability severance pay and forfeiting his Reserve retirement or choose to be placed in an inactive Reserve status and receive Reserve retired pay at age 60, forfeiting disability severance pay.  The PEB indicated that the law specifies that he could not receive both disability benefits and retired pay for non-regular service.  He was informed that because he had a service-connected disability, he should contact a VA counselor to learn about available benefits.  
The applicant did not concur and demanded a formal hearing.

His formal hearing, which was scheduled for 24 October 2000, was cancelled in order to allow for further evaluation and treatment.

A 26 July 2000 medical report from the McFarland Clinic in Ames, Iowa indicates that the applicant’s left elbow and wrist pain were reevaluated and his recent psychiatric evaluations reviewed.  The assessment given was tendinitis of wrist and elbow, with possible bursitis.  

In a 7 August 2000 letter a doctor with the McFarland Clinic recommended that the applicant be considered for discharge from the military service because of his psychiatric illness.  He stated that the applicant had indicated that he was overwhelmed by his duties and felt that he could not perform adequately.  His psychological testing suggested that he was extremely irritable and suspicious and the diagnosis suggested a psychotic illness of a bipolar type.  The doctor stated that his situation had been aggravated by the death of his mother in June of that year.  He stated that the applicant had a history of previous mental illness. He stated that the applicant, in spite of his difficulty functioning in the active Reserve, still expressed a desire to participate in the inactive Reserve program. 
A 14 September 2000 VA medical record  from Des Moines, Iowa shows that the applicant’s condition was diagnosed as arthralgia multiple joints, depression/anxiety for which he was being treated, and epididymitis (inflammation of the cordlike stucture along the posterior border of the testis) .  He was advised to avoid running and lifting more than 20 pounds and to not participate in Army physical fitness training.

A 6 November 2000 medical board addendum shows that the applicant was referred for a psychiatric evaluation.  That addendum indicated that the applicant complained of being depressed, lost and feeling empty, and that he could not function in his job.  It indicated that the applicant had a long history of psychiatric illness with multiple hospitalizations.  According to the applicant, his first episode was in 1974, and he had been tried on several medications, to include Lithium carbonate.  It indicated that he had difficulty coping with day to day stressors, some depression, problems with concentration and thinking and also dealing with losses in his life including the death of his wife.  The addendum indicated that he had not complied with treatment in the past.  It indicated that he apparently had been drinking fairly heavy at times.  The applicant denied any major physical complaints.  

The mental status examination indicated that he remained anxious and tense during the interview, that his affect and mood showed that he was depressed, withdrawn, had decreased energy, and admitted to feeling hopeless and helpless.  He denied any suicidal thoughts or plans.  He admitted to having problems with his concentration and thinking and setting goals.  He admitted to low frustration tolerance and poor impulse control at times.  He was oriented to time, place and person.  His memory was intact for both past and present, judgement was fair and insight limited.  The examining physician diagnosed his condition as bipolar disorder and chronic left knee pain, indicating that the applicant did not meet the standards for retention in the Army, that he had multiple psychiatric treatments including inpatient hospitalization for his mood swings and depression, and that he continued to experience intense anxiety, 

problems with his thinking and was not able to function on the job.  He indicated that the applicant needed intensive outpatient treatment and had to be stabilized on his medication.  His disability for the military was definite and significant for civilian employment.  On 20 November 2000 the MEB recommended that he be referred to a PEB for bipolar disorder.  It indicated that he had a history of bipolar disorder that was incurred while entitled to base pay and aggravated by his service.  It indicated that the condition did not exist prior to his service (EPTS).  The applicant concurred with the recommendation of the MEB.

On 15 December 2000 a PEB determined that the applicant’s bipolar disorder was manifested primarily by anxiety and depression, with the onset in 1974, with a remote history of multiple psychiatric hospitalizations.  It showed that he was experiencing helplessness, hopelessness, decreased energy, and anxiety affecting concentration and thinking with low frustration tolerance and poor impulse control.  His current psychiatric medication consisted of Zyprexa (Olanzapine) and Tegretol.  He had a global assessment function of 60.  It indicated that his condition was of very long standing and his health records failed to note any treatment during prior periods of active duty.  The PEB recommended a disability rating of 10 percent and stated that his disability for bipolar disorder existed prior to his service and was not permanently aggravated by service, but was compensable in accordance with Title 10 U.S.C. Section 1207a (8 year rule).  The PEB determined that the applicant was physically unfit because of his bipolar disorder and his chronic left knee pain and recommended that he be separated from the service with severance pay and a combined rating of 10 percent.  The applicant did not concur but waived a formal hearing of his case.  He elected not to appeal the decision.    

On 28 December 2000 the Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) informed the applicant it had reviewed his entire case file and concluded that his case was properly adjudicated, that the PEB’s findings and recommendations were supported by substantial evidence, and were therefore affirmed.

On 12 January 2001 the applicant requested that he be transferred to the Retired Reserve with entitlement to apply for retirement benefits upon reaching age 60. 
On 6 February 2001 he requested transfer either to a troop program unit or to the Individual Ready Reserve.

The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows that he was released from active duty at Fort Leavenworth on 30 March 2001 and transferred to the Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement).  He had over 12 years of active service and over 10 years of inactive service.  

Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army physical disability evaluation system and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating.  It provides for medical evaluation boards, which are convened to document a soldier’s medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is affected by the soldier’s status.  A decision is made as to the soldier’s medical qualifications for retention based on the criteria in AR 40-501, chapter 3.  If the MEB determines the soldier does not meet retention standards, the board will recommend referral of the soldier to a PEB.

Physical evaluation boards are established to evaluate all cases of physical disability equitability for the soldier and the Army.  It is a fact finding board to investigate the nature, cause, degree of severity, and probable permanency of the disability of soldiers who are referred to the board; to evaluate the physical condition of the soldier against the physical requirements of the soldier’s particular office, grade, rank or rating; to provide a full and fair hearing for the soldier; and to make findings and recommendation to establish eligibility of a soldier to be separated or retired because of physical disability.

Congress established the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) as the standard under which percentage rating decisions are to be made for disabled military personnel.  Percentage ratings in the VASRD represent the average loss in earning capacity resulting from diseases and injuries.  The ratings also represent the residual effects of these health impairments on civilian occupations.  

Department of Defense Instruction 1332.39 implements policy, assigns responsibilities, and prescribes procedures for rating disabilities of service members determined to be physically unfit and who are eligible for disability separation or retirement.  Paragraph 6 of that instruction states in pertinent part, that a service member’s degree of disability may have been aggravated or increased by an unreasonable failure or refusal to submit to medical or surgical treatment or therapy, to take prescribed medications, or to observe prescribed restrictions on diet, activities, or the use of alcohol, drugs or tobacco.  The condensable disability rating may be reduced to compensate for such aggravation when the existence and degree of aggravation are ascertainable by application of accepted medical principles, and where it is clearly demonstrated that the service member was advised clearly and understandably of the medically proper course of treatment, therapy, medication, or restriction; and his failure or refusal was willful or negligent, and not the result of mental disease or of physical inability to comply.

Department of Defense Instruction 1332.39 states in pertinent part that not all the general policy provisions of the VASRD are applicable to the military departments in that the DOD instruction replaces appropriate sections of the VASRD.  The portion of the instruction pertaining to mental disorders, codes 9200-9511 in the VASRD, states that loss of function is the principal criterion for establishing the level of impairment resulting from mental illness.  Loss of function is reflected in impaired social and industrial adaptability.  Psychoses specifically include disorders manifesting disturbances of perception, thinking, emotional control and behavior, severe enough to hinder economic adjustment, that is, hinder the service member’s capacity to perform military duties or to earn a living.  Even psychosis, however, may resolve such that the impact on economic adjustment is minimal to none.  

The VASRD uses specific terms to classify the level of social and industrial impairment.

The VA Schedule For Rating Disabilities, General Rating Formula for bipolar disorder shows that disorder may be rated 100, 70, 50, 30, 10 or zero percent disabling. 
A 30 percent rating is described as appropriate when there is definite impairment in the ability to establish or maintain effective and wholesome relationships with people.  The psychoneurotic symptoms result in such reduction in initiative, flexibility, efficiency and reliability levels as to produce definite industrial impairment.
A 10 percent rating is shown as appropriate for emotional tension or other evidence of anxiety productive of mild social and industrial impairment.
The term “Axis” refers to the use of the multiaxial system of evaluation outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).  Axis I refers to clinical disorders (conditions not attributable to a mental disorder that are a focus of attention or treatment).  Axis II refers to personality disorders and mental retardation.  Axis III refers to general medical conditions.  Axis IV refers to psychosocial and environmental problems that may affect the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of mental disorders (Axes I and II).  Axis V refers to the global (overall) assessment of functioning (GAF).  Axis V is for reporting the clinician’s judgment of the individuals’ overall level of functioning.

The GAF scale may be particularly useful in tracking the clinical progress of individuals in global terms, using a single measure.  The GAF scale is to be rated with respect only to psychological, social, and occupational functioning.  Scale is reported on Axis V as follows:  “GAF= “ followed by the GAF rating from              1 to 100, followed by the time period reflected in the ratings in parentheses, for example “(current),”  and “(highest level in past year).” 

GAF scale 100-91 describes a person with “superior functioning in a wide range of activities … No symptoms.”  GAF 90-81, a person with “absent or minimal symptoms, good functioning in all areas … socially effective, generally satisfied with life, no more than everyday problems or concerns.”  GAF 80-71, a person, “if symptoms are present, they are transient and expectable reactions to psychosocial stressors; no more than slight impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning.”  GAF 70-61, a person with “some mild symptoms or some difficulty in social, or school functioning, but generally functioning pretty well, has some meaningful interpersonal relationships.”  GAF 60-51, a person with “moderate symptoms or moderate difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning.”

The VASRD provides that degenerative arthritis (code 5003) established by x-ray findings will be rated on the basis of limitation of motion under the appropriate diagnostic codes for the specific joint or joints involved.  DOD Instruction 1332.39 provides for a 10 percent disability rating for degenerative arthritis for objective limitation of motion plus radiographic evidence for each major joint.  That instruction states in pertinent part that limitation of motion of affected joints may warrant rating under 5200 series (VASRD), e.g., ankylosis of the knee with a disability rating from 60 percent (extremely unfavorable, in flexion at an angle of 45 degrees or more) to 30 percent (favorable angle in full extension, or in slight flexion between zero and 10 degrees; or recurrent subluxation or lateral instability of the knee with a disability rating from 30 percent to 10 percent.  That instruction states, however, that in cases in which there is a limitation of motion not of sufficient degree to rate under the 5200 series, the rating shall be done under 5003.   

Title 10 U.S.C., Section 1207a states in effect, that a soldier’s disability shall be deemed to have been incurred while he is entitled to basic pay and shall be so considered for purposes of determining whether the disability was incurred in line of duty; notwithstanding the fact that his disability is determined to have been incurred before he became entitled to basic pay in his current period of active duty, provided that he has at least 8 years of active service. 

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

Title 10, United Stated Code, section 1209, states in effect, that any member of the armed forces who has at least 20 years of service and who would be qualified for retirement but for the fact that his disability is less than 30 percent may elect, instead of being separated, to be transferred to the inactive status list, and if otherwise eligible, to receive retired pay upon reaching age 60.

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.  Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency.

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.  The applicant’s evaluation reports, the latest ending in October 1999, indicate that the applicant had a profile that affected his deployability, and that he failed to perform duties during three exercises because of poor stress management. Nonetheless, the applicant was considered to be a fully capable NCO.  A VA medical report of 23 September 1999 indicated that he had no physical limitations, as did a 5 October 1999 rheumatology consultation, notwithstanding his joint pains.  

2.  The applicant did have a slight hearing problem but there is no evidence to show that his hearing loss was disabling or that it affected his duty performance.

3.  The PEB determined that his bipolar condition was manifested primarily by anxiety and depression, with the onset in 1974, as the applicant himself had indicated, as reflected in the 6 November 2000 medical board addendum; and notwithstanding the opinion by the MEB, his condition existed prior to his service and was not permanently aggravated by his service.  A review of his health records did not reveal treatment during prior periods of active duty.  The PEB also determined that although the applicant had chronic knee pain, his knee was normal according to x-rays and MRI.  He had a full range of motion in his knee without any joint instability.  In October 1999 a rheumatologist stated that the applicant had pain in a number of areas, but those pains did not interfere with his performance or his physical fitness.  The 19 July 2000 MEB indicated that         X-rays, MRI, and physical examination, revealed an essentially normal knee.     Although the applicant did not concur with the PEB, he waived a formal hearing and elected not to appeal the decision.  The Physical Disability Agency affirmed the findings and recommendation of the PEB.  The applicant was awarded a      10 percent only because of the 8 year rule.  

4.  As late as September 1999 he was diagnosed as being depressed, apparently because of being overwhelmed with work.  He was also abusing alcohol, to include drinking to intoxication on weekends.  The November 2000 MEB addendum indicated that the applicant had difficulty with stressors, some depression, and problems with concentration and thinking.  It also indicated that the applicant had not complied with treatment in the past and had been drinking fairly heavy at times.  Nonetheless, and although he had some moderate difficulty in performing his job, he was able to function and do his job in spite of his bipolar disorder, and his knee pain as evidenced by his NCO evaluation reports.  The applicant himself felt that he was fit to continue his military service despite his bipolar disorder and his knee pain as evidenced by his decision in February 2001 to remain in the Army Reserve.     

5.  He had some problems.  However, his abuse of alcohol and his noncompliance with treatment may have aggravated his condition.  He could function and do his job.  The  evidence of record supports the determination that the applicant's unfitting condition was properly diagnosed and that his 10 percent disability rating for bipolar disorder and his zero percent rating for knee pain were fair and just at the time of his discharge.  His contentions do not demonstrate error or injustice in the disability rating assigned by the Army, nor error or injustice in the disposition of his case by his release from active duty.

6.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy that requirement.

7.  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

__JNS __  __TBR __  __LE____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001058709	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20011220	
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.