MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           27 October 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999025187

	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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		Member	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		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 appeal  to change the reason for his 1988 discharge to physical disability retirement be reconsidered.

APPLICANT STATES:   In effect, that a 1995 change in his VA disability rating demonstrates that he was disabled when he was discharged.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were reported in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of the case on 15 April 1998 (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant submits a copy of a 1 June 1998 letter from the VA showing that his rating decision had been changed to 40 percent for a spinal disc condition and 10 percent for removal of tailbone.  The overall rating was still 50 percent.  This change in rating is, technically, new evidence that requires Board consideration. 

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 was  fully evaluated by the MEB/PEB process and concurred with the disability rating of zero percent.  He was separated with disability severance pay .  While the establishment (or change of a VA disability rating might be an indication that a rating error had occurred in a particular Army disability case , such a VA rating is not sufficient, in and of itself, to establish that the disability rating at the time of the discharge should be changed.  This is especially so in the face of convincing evidence that the individual's inability to perform duty was properly evaluated and fairly rated.
 
2.  The issue of the differences between the military and the VA application of the disability rating system is established in law and was completely and competently discussed in the previous revue.  The change in the VA rating does not make any difference in this case.

3.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

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

__mkp___  ___gdp__  __kan___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999025187	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991027	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.04	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.