MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           11 February 2000                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028493

	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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		Member	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III		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: Reconsideration of his earlier application to correct his records by showing that he was separated from active duty with disability retirement rather than with disability severance pay.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the disability ratings furnished by the VA demonstrate that he should have been found eligible for disability retirement.  He submits VA rating decision from September 1990 through 1998, a VA Form 10-10 dated September 1990 showing that he was seeking a higher rating, and 1998 civilian medical treatment records concerning cervical spine problems.  

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case on 11 March 1999 (COPY ATTACHED).

The VA ratings are, technically, new evidence that requires Board Consideration. They might, but not necessarily, point to an error or injustice in the Army’s disability rating. 

The VA documents show that the VA rated the applicant at 20 percent in September 1990 and March 1991 for Raynaud disease with cold intolerance.  (Raynaud disease: A condition resulting in skin discoloration of the fingers and/or toes when a person is exposed to changes in temperature(cold or hot) or to emotional events. 
 Raynaud disease or primary Raynaud phenomenon. When it accompanies other diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, it is called secondary Raynaud phenomenon).  Following a Board of Veteran Appeals hearing in July 1992 the combined rating was raised to 30 percent by adding a 10 percent rating for traumatic arthritis of the left first toe joint.  In 1994 the combined rating to 40 percent adding 10 percent rating for chronic rhinitis   

Army Physical disability Agency (USAPDA) has repeatedly noted in advisory opinions in similar cases that confusion frequently arises from the fact that different rating systems are used by the Army and the DVA.  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, because they adversely effect the individuals ability to perform assigned duties, thus compensating the individual for loss of a career.  The DVA, on the other hand, may rate any service-connected impairment, in order to compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability or social functioning. 
By way of comparison, the VA can, and in many instances does, rate an individual for pain.  The Army could only rate the same painful condition if it impaired the soldier’s ability to perform assigned duty. The USAPDA has also 

pointed out that its disability ratings are based upon the degree to which a medical condition effects the ability to perform duty and not upon the diagnosis or mane attached to the condition.   

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 award of a VA compensation rating does not mandate change of nor demonstrate an inequity in a military disability rating.  The VA, operating under its own policies and regulations, may make a determination that a medical condition warrants compensation.  The VA is not required to determine fitness for duty at the time of separation.  The Army must find a member physically unfit before he can be medically retired or separated.  Furthermore, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings. 

2.  The fact that the VA, in its discretion, has awarded the applicant a particular disability rating is a prerogative exercised within the policies of that agency.  It does not, in itself, establish an error or injustice in the Army rating.

3.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions 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___  __tbr____  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
   Director, Army Review Board Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999027859	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000211	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.04	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.