MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            4 February 1999                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12512

	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:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convÐÏà¡±áÐÏà¡±á>þÿ	:<þÿÿÿ9ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ 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:  That his Army disability rating be increased from 
10 to 30 percent.

APPLICANT STATES:  In essence, that following his separation from active duty, he was awarded a combined 30 percent rating by the VA which included ratings for medical conditions that were not rated by the Army.

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

He entered active duty on 27 September 1982.  He served in military occupational specialty 98G, electronic warfare voice interceptor and attained pay grade E-6. 

On 13 February 1997 he underwent a medical evaluation board (MEBD).  The MEBD Narrative Summary shows that the applicant's chief complaint was low back pain; that he suffered from low back pain since January 1995 without specific trauma; that x-rays showed spondylosis (L5-S1) [narrowing of the spinal canal in the lower back] and that despite physical therapy treatments and medications, the pain persisted.  A history of hypertension (high blood pressure), "well controlled on medication" was noted.  He was referred to a physical evaluation board (PEB).

On 23 April 1997 a PEB found him physically unfit for further military service solely because of low back pain secondary to L5-S1 spondylosis  The condition was rated 10 percent disabling and separation with entitlement to disability severance pay was recommended.  The applicant concurred with the PEB findings and recommendations and waived his right to a formal hearing of his case.

On 23 June 1997, with 14 years, 8 months, and 27 days total active service, he was honorably discharged with entitlement to disability severance pay in the amount of $46,720.80.

A VA document shows that he was awarded a combined 30 percent disability rating by that agency effective 24 June 1997 for low back pain (10 percent), hypertension (10 percent), and bursitis (10 percent).  He was denied service connection for five other claimed service connected disabilities. 

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.

Title 10, United States Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has an impairment rated at less than 30 percent disabling.
Army Regulation 635-40, Appendix B, Army Application of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD), paragraph B-3f, provides that conditions which do not render a soldier unfit for military service will not be considered in determining the compensable disability rating unless the conditions contribute to the finding of unfitness. 

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.

VA documents show 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.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, and applicable law and regulations it is concluded:

1.  The applicant was found physically unfit for further military service solely because of his low back condition.  Both the Army and the VA rated this condition as 10 percent disabling.

2.  Notwithstanding the presence, or possible presence, of other medical conditions prior to his separation from active duty, there is no evidence of record, nor has the applicant submitted sufficient evidence which would indicate that he suffered from any other medical conditions which were of such severity that by themselves they rendered him unfit or contributed to the finding of unfitness.

3.  An award of a VA rating does not establish error or injustice.  An Army disability rating is intended to compensate an individual for interruption of a military career after it has been determined that the individual suffers from an impairment that disqualifies him or her from further military service.  The VA, which has neither the authority nor the responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service, awards disability ratings to veterans for medical conditions that it determines were incurred during military service and subsequently affect the individual's civilian employability.  Accordingly, it is not unusual for the two agencies of the Government, operating under different laws, policies, and regulations, to arrive at a different disability rating.

4.  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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12512/1999017114	
SUFFIX	N/A	
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	1999 February 4	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	N/A	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	N/A	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.