MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           16 March 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028380

	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.

	Ms. Gale Thomas		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Mr. Orville W. Troesch, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		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, disability separation or retirement.

APPLICANT STATES:  That based on his disabilities he should have been medically retired, or allowed to remain on active duty until retirement; that he is 70 percent disabled and should have been placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL), or retired.  In support of his request the applicant submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) and a copy of his approved VA award for disability conpensation.

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

On 22 April 1981, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  He completed basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and advanced individual training at Fort Lee, Virginia.  The applicant spent 4 tours overseas which included, Germany, Panama, Korea and Hawaii, and was assigned to various other locations such as, Fort Campbell, Kentucky, Fort Hood, Texas, and Fort Riley, Kansas.  

He was promoted to the pay grades of E-4, E-5 and E-6, on 1 August 1983,      26 March 1988 and 1 April 1995, respectively.

On 1 August 1996, the applicant was notified that the CY96 Sergeant First Class/ANCOC Promotion Selection Board had determined that he was to be barred from reenlisting under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP).

The applicant was barred from reenlisting effective 13 August 1996.

On 26 March 1997, a Department of the Army, Standby Advisory Board disapproved the applicant appeal of his bar to reenlistment under the QMP.  

On 6 August 1997, the findings of a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) were approved.  The PEB determined that the applicant was physically fit to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank and MOS.

On 7 December 1997, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8, for reduction in force.  His Report of Separation indicates he had 16 years, 8 months and 11 days of creditable service, and was awarded $19,993.53 in severance pay.

Subsequent to his separation, the applicant was granted a combined service connected disability rating of 70 percent by the VA for nasal swelling, hypertension, back strain, a foot condition, degenerative arthritis and asthma.

Army Regulation 601-280, chapter 10, sets forth policy and prescribes procedures for denying reenlistment under the QMP.  This program is based on the premise that reenlistment is a privilege for those whose performance, conduct, attitude, and potential for advancement meet Army standards.  It is designed to (1) enhance the quality of the career enlisted force, (2) selectively retain the best qualified soldiers to 30 years of active duty, (3) deny reenlistment to nonprogressive and nonproductive soldiers, and (4) encourage soldiers to maintain their eligibility for further service.  The QMP consists of two major subprograms, the qualitative retention subprogram and the qualitative screening subprogram.  Under the qualitative screening subprogram, records for grades E-5 through E-9 are regularly screened by the DA promotion selection boards.  The appropriate selection boards evaluate past performances and estimate the potential of each soldier to determine if continued service is warranted.  Soldiers whose continued service is not warranted receive a QMP bar to reenlistment.

Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 3-3b(1), as amended, provides that for an individual to be found unfit by reason of physical disability, he must be unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating.

Army Regulation 40-501, at paragraph 3-3a, provided, in pertinent part, that performance of duty despite an impairment would be considered presumptive evidence of physical fitness.

Title 38, United States 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.  Furthermore, unlike the Army the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings.

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.  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.  

2.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

3.  The evidence of record indicates he did not have any medically unfitting disability which required physical disability processing.  Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability retirement or separation.

4.  A rating action by the VA does not necessarily demonstrate any error or injustice by the Army.  The VA, operating under its own policies and regulations, assigns disability ratings as it sees fit.  Any rating action by the VA does not compel the Army to modify its reason or authority for separation.

5.  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

___jlp___  __owt___  ___cjp___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028380	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000316	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 145.00		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.