MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:         

	BOARD DATE:              30 November 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:      AR2000038898

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. W. E. Schnupp		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		Member	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		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 her medical discharge be changed to a medical retirement.

APPLICANT STATES:  That she should be awarded the following percentages (of disability) as determined by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA):  Herniated disc- 40%, cervical spine injury with degenerative joint disease-10%, asthma-10%, hypertension-10%, anxiety/depression-30%, sinusitis/allergies-10%, residuals of shoulder injury-20%, temporomandibular joint dysfunction-10%, chondromalacia right knee-10% and left knee-10%.

In support of her request, she submits a copy of her DD Form 214 (Separation Document) and a copy of the DVA rating decision on her compensation claim.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records and copies of her Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) proceedings provided to the Board by the Physical Disability Agency show:

She enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 July 1984 and was awarded the military occupational specialty of food service specialist.  She was honorably discharged on 17 June 1998 in pay grade E-7 after 13 years, 10 months and 25 days, service with 20 % disability and severance pay in the amount of $51,350.40.

On 19 August 1997 a formal PEB recommended that the applicant be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List with a disability rating of 20% for chronic low back pain with degenerative disk disease and chronic pain due to moderately severe chronic bilateral plantar fasciitis and 10% for chronic asthma for a combined total of 30% disability.  She disagreed with that decision, but elected not to appeal.  Upon review of her case, it was determined that there was insufficient medical information to substantiate her asthmatic condition as unfitting.  Her case was then returned to the medical treatment facility for additional medical information regarding the status of her pulmonary impairments.

On 13 March 1998 a formal PEB reconsidered her entire case.  It was determined that the applicant was physically unfit due to chronic low back pain with degenerative disk disease and chronic pain due to moderately severe chronic bilateral plantar fasciitis.  Based on the results of her pulmonary tests, however, it was determined that her asthma was not unfitting and not compensable.  Therefore, the PEB recommended she be discharged with a combined rating of 20% disability with severance pay.

The DVA compensation letter shows that the applicant has been awarded a combined disability evaluation of 90% for herniated disc-40%, anxiety/depression-30%, shoulder injury-20%, hypertension-10%, injury cervical spine with degenerative joint disease-10%, temporomandibular joint dysfunction-10%, chondromalacia-10% for each knee, asthma-10%, bilateral fasciitis with heel spurs-10%, sinusitis/allergies-10%, epicondylitis right elbow-0% and gastrointestinal reflux disease-0%.  

Title 10, United States Code, section 1208, provides for the physical disability separation with severance pay of a member who has less than 20 years service and a disability rated at less than 30 percent.

Title 38, United States Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the DVA to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  However, an award of a higher DVA rating does not establish error or injustice in the Army rating.  An Army disability rating is intended to compensate an individual for interruption of a military career after it has been determined that the individual suffers from an impairment that disqualifies him or her from further military service.  The DVA, which has neither the authority nor the responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service, awards disability ratings to veterans for conditions that it determines were incurred during military service and subsequently affect the individual’s employability.  Accordingly, it is not unusual for the two agencies, operating under different policies, to arrive at a different disability rating based on the same impairment.  Furthermore, unlike the Army the DVA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency’s examinations and findings.  Confusion arises from the fact that the Army and the DVA use different rating systems.  While both use the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD), not all of the general policy provisions set forth in the VASRD apply to the Army.  The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting, thus compensating the individual for loss of a career; while the DVA may rate any service connected impairment, in order to compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability. 

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’s rating by the DVA does not indicate that her rating by the Army was in error.

2.  The fact that the DVA, operating under its own laws and regulations, has awarded the applicant a higher rating than the Army is indicative of the difference between the two agencies and the purposes for which ratings are assigned.

3.  While it is understandable that the applicant believes that every medical condition she incurred while on active duty should be rated by the Army, as the DVA did, the Army only awards ratings on conditions that end a soldier’s military career.  There is no indication that her other medical conditions, while certainly physically limiting (and so rated and compensated by the DVA as socially and industrially limiting), prevented her from performing her duties as a food service noncommissioned officer.  They are not, therefore, ratable by the Army.

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

___jns___  ____tl___  ____cla__  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000038898	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20001130	
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.  108.02		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.