MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:                10 December 1998
	DOCKET NUMBER:       AC98-09106

	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. Paul A. Petty		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. James M Alward		Member	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		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 effect, that his medical discharge with 10% disability be changed to a medical retirement.

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant submits copies of a Veterans Affairs (VA) rating sheet dated 21 February 1997 showing a combined VA disability rating of 50% and a VA physical dated 24 May 1996.

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

That he was honorably discharged from the Regular Army on 2 April 1996 for disability with severance pay.  He was discharged as an E5 with 5 years 11 days active service and 6 years 29 days inactive service.  His military specialty was Practical Nurse and his last assignment was to Fitzsimmons Army Medical Center (FAMC), Denver, Colorado.

On 16 March 1995, the applicant was involved in an automobile accident as a passenger.  He was ejected through the rear window of the vehicle and experienced multiple injuries requiring emergency treatment and hospitalization.  Of his 7 injuries, 4 were resolved (healed without further problem) but the injuries to his right wrist and lower back continued to cause him pain and reduced his ability to use his right hand.

On 21 February 1996, the applicant's medical condition was reviewed by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) at FAMC.  The MEB concluded that the applicant was not able to perform his duties and recommended him to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).  The PEB was conducted at Fort Lewis on 8 March 1996.  The PEB determined that the condition of the applicant's right wrist made him unfit for military duty and recommended his separation from the service with a 10% combined disability with severance pay.

Title 10, United States Code, section 1203, states that a military member must have 30% or more rated disability at the time of separation in order to be considered for medical retirement.

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.  However, an award of a higher VA rating does not establish error or injustice in the Army rating.  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 conditions that it determines were incurred during military service and subsequently affect the individual’s employability.  Accordingly, it is not unusual for the two agencies of the Government, operating under different policies, to arrive at a different disability rating based on the same impairment.  Furthermore, unlike the Army, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency’s examinations and findings.  Confusion arises from the fact that different rating systems are used by the Army and the VA.  While both use the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASARD), not all of the general policy provisions set forth in the VASARD apply to the Army.  The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting, thus compensating the individual for loss of a career; while the VA may rate any service connected impairment, in order to compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability. 

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

1.  The applicant's disability discharge for 10% rated disability at the time of separation is correct.  The applicant did not have 30% or more rated disability at the time of separation and therefore did not qualify for medical retirement.  Changes in the applicant's disability rating after his separation and under the VA rating system do not apply to military separation.

2.  In view of the foregoing, there is no error or injustice, and therefore, 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

JHL ____  _JMW___  _SK_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-09106	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1998 December 10	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1996 April 2	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .635-40, Chapter 4	
DISCHARGE REASON	Disability, Severance Pay	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.