MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            22 July 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999019221

	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:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas N. Kuhn		Member	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		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:  Requests that his disability discharge be changed to a medical retirement.

APPLICANT STATES: :  That medical evidence and medical records confirm that his bipolar disorder warranted at least a 30% disability rating and his back/neck condition warranted a separate 20% disability rating at the time of separation from the service instead of the 10% each he was given.

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

That he was discharged on 17 June 1996 for disability with severance pay.  At the time of discharge, he was an E-5 Sergeant with 13½ years of active duty and 
5 years reserve duty.

The applicant's medical records and results of 5 medical examinations between 11 August and 11 September 1995 were reviewed by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) between 19 and 25 October 1995 at Fort Benning.  The MEB considered the applicant's medical conditions to include a bipolar personality disorder, alcohol dependence in remission (non-rateable disorder), passive and dependent personality features that existed prior to military service, muscular tension headaches, history of gout (one episode), olecranon bursitis, mild hyperlipidemia, and left varicocele which was asymptomatic.  The MEB recommended a review by the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) which was conducted at Fort Sam Houston on 31 October 1995.  The PEB initially recommended a 10% disability rating for the bipolar disorder and recommended a disability discharge with severance pay.  The PEB notified the applicant of this decision.  The applicant responded on 13 November 1995 that he disagreed with the recommendation and requested a formal PEB.  A formal board was scheduled for 18 January 1996 but in January 1996 the applicant waived the formal board.

Because of the applicant's disagreement with the PEB on the percent and type of disability, on 5 February 1996 the PEB sent the case back to the medical treatment facility (MTF) at Fort Benning for additional tests.  Following receipt of additional medical information from the MTF, the PEB conducted a second informal board and notified the applicant of its recommendation.  On 
14 February 1996, the applicant again disagreed with the PEB recommendation and requested a formal board.  The applicant appeared before a formal PEB on 14 March 1996 and again disagreed with the PEB recommendations.  On 
25 March 1996, the PEB reconsidered the case and provided response to the applicant on 26 March 1996.  On 10 April 1996, the applicant again disagreed with the PEB.  The PEB again reconsidered the medical information and made a final recommendation to the US Army Physical Disability Agency (PDA) Arlington, Virginia, on 25 April 1996.  On 1 May 1996, the PDA made their finale decision to discharge the applicant for disability with severance pay with 10% disability for his bipolar disorder and 10% for his neck and back pain with headaches.  On 15 May 1996, the discharge orders were published and the applicant was so discharged on 17 June 1996 after taking some final leave.

The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) evaluated the applicant's medical conditions and disabilities on 7 November 1997 and determined that he should then be rated at 30% for the bipolar disorder, 10% for the neck and back pain with headaches, and 10% for olecranon bursitis.

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 at the time of discharge, thus compensating the individual for loss of a career; while the VA may rate any service connected impairment, including those that are detected after discharge, in order to compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability. 

A finding of 30% disability or more by a PEB and PDA is necessary for medical retirement.  A PDA finding of less that 30% disability can only authorize a discharge for disability.

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 medical records and physical examination were continually reviewed by the PEB and the PDA from 19 October 1995 to 1 May 1996.  He was granted a formal hearing in which he appeared before the PEB to personally present his case and to be questioned by the board.  It appears that he was granted ample opportunity to present his case and that the PEB considered his medical condition and level of disability over a lengthy period of time and in much detail.

2.  The PEB and PDA determined that the bipolar personality disorder rated at 10% and the neck and back pain with headache rated at 10% were the applicant's only unfitting disabilities.  The other conditions were considered and at the time were not found to be unfitting.  With only a total of 20% disability determined, the applicant was only eligible for a disability discharge which he was given.  At that time, he did not have 30% or greater disability required for consideration of a medical retirement.

3.  The VA properly continues to evaluate a veteran's medical conditions following discharge and changes disability ratings as the applicant's medical conditions change.  However, these subsequent changes do not change the findings of the PEB and PDA at the time of separation nor are they a basis for later changing the percent disability established by the PEB.  The PEB disability ratings are based on unfitness for continued military service at the time of discharge while the VA ratings are to compensate for changing medical conditions that impact a veteran's ability to function in civilian life.

4.  A VA disability rating different from a PEB and PDA disability rating is not a basis for any change to their disability rating decision or type of military discharge.

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

__cmf ___  _tnk   ___  __rjw____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999019221	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990722	
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.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.