MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

IN THE CASE OF:	

BOARD DATE:	 5 January 2000
DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028017

	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. Gerald E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Erin J. Olmes		Chairperson	
	Mr. John D. Miller		Member	
	Mr. James M. Alward		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 previous application to correct his records from Trainee Discharge Program to physical disability retirement.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was discharged one day shy of the necessary 180 days of service for entitlement to VA benefits.  He avers that his command was aware that he was suffering from a schizophrenic condition and that as the VA has granted him a total disability evaluation, which warrants physical disability retirement from the military.  He states, in effect, that the Army should compensate him for his permanent disabilities.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 27 May 1999 (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant submits copies of the 25 January 1999 Board of Veterans Appeals decision and the 14 April 1999 VA rating decision.  These documents were not available at the time of the prior review.

The VA decisions granted the applicant entitlement to a total disability evaluation based upon its determination that the “aggravation of his preexisting condition was not clearly and unmistakably shown to have been due to the natural progress of the condition.” 

Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph B-10, provides that hereditary, congenital and other EPTS conditions frequently become unfitting through natural progression and should not be assigned a disability rating unless service aggravated complications are clearly documented or unless a soldier has been permitted to continue on active duty after such a condition, known to be progressive, was diagnosed or should have been diagnosed.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel from active duty.  Paragraph 5-11 provides for the early separation (within the first six months) of those individuals who were not qualified under procurement medical standards, who manifested symptoms of medical problems that would have made them not qualified under procurement medical standards or who became not qualified prior to entry.  The retention or separation decision is within the cognizance of the appropriate discharge authority.  Except in certain extraordinary cases, uncharacterized entry-level separation is mandatory for all individuals who are in an entry-level status (within the first 180 of active duty) at the time separation processing is commenced.

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.  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.

2.  Had the applicant revealed his true medical history he would have been medically disqualified for induction and/or retention.  There is no evidence of any event that would show that his condition was aggravated by his period of service beyond what can be determined to have been the normal progression of the condition. 

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

__ejo__ _  __jdm___  __jma____  DENY APPLICATION

	Karl F. Schneider
	Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028017	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	 20000105	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	 	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	 	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.00	
2.	108.01	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.