MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            13 January 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999024611

	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. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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:  That he be permanently medically retired.

APPLICANT STATES:  While his disability rating from the Army was reduced from 30 to 10 percent, his disability rating from the VA for the same condition has remained constant at 60 percent.

COUNSEL REQUESTS:  The Board’s careful and sympathetic consideration of all the evidence of record used in rendering a fair and impartial decision.

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

He was inducted on active duty on 13 December 1967, reenlisted in the Regular Army on 21 August 1969, and was promoted to pay grade E-5.

While serving in Vietnam as a cook, on 24 April 1971 he was standing on the side of a rough terrain forklift being operated by a Vietnamese employee when he was thrown from the forklift, dislocating and breaking his right wrist.  Since there were no witnesses to the incident, his injury was considered to have been incurred in line of duty.

On 14 January 1972 a physical evaluation board (PEB) convened and determined that the applicant was physically unfit due to perilunate dislocation with residuals of median nerve, paralysis of, right, incomplete, moderate, major.  The PEB recommended that the applicant be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) rated 30 percent disabled.  The applicant concurred with those findings and recommendation.

He was honorably released from active duty by reason of placement on the TDRL on 20 March 1972.

On 2 July 1973, while the applicant was assigned to the TDRL, an informal PEB was convened which determined that the applicant was then fit for duty.  The applicant did not concur and demanded a formal hearing.

Accordingly, on 15 August 1973 a formal PEB convened which also determined that the applicant’s condition had improved to the point that he was physically fit for duty.

Based on the fitness for duty finding, the applicant was removed from the TDRL on 30 September 1973.

An award of a VA rating does not establish entitlement to medical retirement or separation.  The VA is not required to find unfitness for duty.  Operating under its own policies and regulations, the VA awards ratings because a medical condition is related to service, i.e., service-connected.  Furthermore, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings.  The Army must find unfitness for duty at the time of separation before a member may be medically retired or separated. 

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 has not submitted any evidence which would show that the finding of fitness for duty was in error or unjust.

2.  While the VA may continue a disability rating on the applicant due to the social or industrial impairment of his wrist injury, that does not affect the Army’s finding that he could perform his duties as a cook.

3.  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

_emw____  __ewl ___  _mvt ___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024611	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.05	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.