MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           6 January 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028294

	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.

	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Edward Williamson		Chairperson	
	Mr. John Saputo		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:  That his discharge be changed to a medical retirement.

APPLICANT STATES:  That the VA has rated him at 50 percent disabled for several years now.  He provides no supporting evidence.

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

He entered the Delayed Entry Program on 12 January 1978 (his DD Form 4 shows he had no prior active or inactive service at that time and his DD Form 1966 shows he was in high school from 1974 – 1978).  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 June 1978.  

The applicant’s medical records show he was treated numerous times for a dislocated shoulder/shoulder pain but was never given a permanent physical profile.  His DA Form 2A, Personnel Qualification Record, dated 24 February 1984 shows his PULHES (physical profile serial system) as 111111 (considered to possess a high level of medical fitness).  A Consultation Sheet from Physical Therapy dated 21 August 1984 mentions “…dislocated shldr in ‘75 when involved in motorcycle accident, dislocated same shldr again in ‘77 while playing football & again in ‘79 while playing football..."

On 20 December 1984, the applicant completed a separation physical examination.  The SF Form 88, Report of Medical Examination, item 75 notes “not to allow separation until seen by 7th MEDCOM orthopedic consultant on       1 Feb 85 at Augsburg Hospital.”  He was given a temporary physical profile of 131111 (one or more medical conditions or physical defects which may require significant limitations in the upper extremities factor) at this time.  There is no evidence he was seen by the orthopedic consultant.  Item 77 of the SF 88, which apparently was completed at a later date, notes he was qualified for separation.

On 14 February 1985, the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge under honorable conditions, for misconduct, commission of a serious offense.  His DD Form 214, item 12d erroneously shows he had 4 years, 6 months and 12 days of prior active service.  All his active service time is correctly shown in item 12c.

In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the medical advisor to the Army Review Boards Agency (SEE ATTACHED).  The opinion noted that the applicant initially dislocated his shoulder as a result of a motorcycle accident in 1975, he underwent two surgical procedures while in the Army to correct the laxity in the joint and the last available Physical Therapy rehabilitation notes indicated he was tolerating rehabilitation well and progressing satisfactorily.  

The applicant rebutted the opinion, stating that he was unaware of a motorcycle accident in 1975 and requesting his medical records be reviewed again.

Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability.  The regulation defines “physically unfit” as unfitness due to physical disability.  The unfitness is of such a degree that a soldier is unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating in such a way as to reasonably fulfill the purpose of his employment on active duty. 

Title 38, U. S. Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service.  The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned.  Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual’s medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion, it is concluded:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  While the applicant’s medical records verify that he had been treated numerous times for shoulder problems, there is no evidence of record to show he was ever given a permanent physical profile or that the problems made him unfit to perform his military duties.  

3.  The rating action by the VA does not necessarily demonstrate an error or injustice on the part of the Army.  The VA, operating under its own policies and regulation, assigns disability ratings as it sees fit.  Any rating action by the VA does not compel the Army to adjust its discharge accordingly. 

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.
NOTE: The applicant’s DD Form 214, item 12d erroneously shows the applicant had 4 years, 6 months and 12 days of total prior active service.  Therefore, the Army Review Boards Agency, Support Division, will be directed to administratively correct the applicant’s records by amending his DD Form 214, item 12d to reflect 00 00 00.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__ew____  __js____  __alr___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028294	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000106	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.