MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           25 August 1999     
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999024407

	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	
	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		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:  An increase in his Army disability rating.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his wrist condition was not included as part of his Army disability processing and he notes that his back condition is far worse than he was told at the time of his separation.  In support of his request he submits documents confirming his VA disability rating and letters from employers indicating he is unable to work.

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

He entered active duty on 9 March 1995 and successfully completed training as an artilleryman prior to being assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

In November 1996, after receiving a permanent profile for chronic low back pain, the applicant appeared before a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and was referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).  The 30 December 1996 PEB found the applicant’s back condition unfitting and recommended separation with a 10 percent disability rating.

On 15 January 1997 the applicant underwent elective arthroscopy surgery on his right wrist without complications.  He was placed on one week of convalescent leave with no indication that further consideration by a PEB was required.

On 27 March 1997 the applicant was honorably discharged and received more than $4000.00 in disability severance pay.

Subsequent to his separation the applicant was awarded a combined service connected disability rating of 20 percent by the VA.  Ratings were assigned for his back condition and wrist.

Title 10, United States Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years service and a disability rated at less than 30 percent.

Title 10, United States Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rated at least 30 percent.

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.

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 disability was properly rated and his separation with severance pay was in compliance with law and regulation.

2.  The evidence of record does not support the applicant’s contention that an additional unaddressed medical complaint somehow affected the outcome of his Army disability processing.  The applicant, who would have been familiar with his medical ailments, at the time of the MEB and PEB, concurred with the findings of both and provides no evidence that he ever raised either issue during his disability processing.

3.  Furthermore, the applicant provides no evidence or documentation with his application to this Board, which substantiates that his wrist condition was in anyway unfitting.

4.  The rating action by the VA does not necessarily demonstrate any error or injustice in the Army rating.  The VA, operating under its own policies and regulations, assigns disability ratings as it sees fit.  Any rating action by the VA does not compel the Army to modify its rating.

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

___lls___  __le____  __alr___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024407	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990825	
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.