MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:          15 August 2000    
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000043388

	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	
	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas D. Howard		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Ms. Gail J. Wire 		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 retirement vice disability separation.

APPLICANT STATES:  The Army awarded him a 20 percent disability rating and the VA subsequently granted him a 70 percent disability rating “which is a gross miscalculation on the Army’s behalf.”  In support of his request he submits copies of his 1999 VA disability rating.

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

He entered active duty on 6 January 1993.  In January 1996 he was issued a permanent physical profile for his lower extremities which precluded running, jumping, squatting, and crawling.

On 9 July 1998 the applicant was honorably discharged by reason of physical disability and awarded more than $16,000 in disability severance pay.  Documents associated with his disability processing were not in records available to the Board.  However, his records do contain an order assigning him to the Southeastern U.S. Army Transition Point in Georgia which indicates he was authorized disability severance pay in the grade of E-4 with a 20 percent disability rating.

In December 1999 the applicant was awarded a combined VA disability rating of 70 percent.

The Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) has noted in advisory opinions in similar cases that confusion frequently arises from the fact that the Army and the VA use different rating systems.  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 individual’s ability to perform assigned duties, thus compensating the individual for loss of a career.  The VA, on the other hand, may rate any service-connected impairment, in order to compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability or social functioning.  The USAPDA has also pointed out that military disability ratings are based upon the degree to which a medical condition effects the ability to perform duty and not upon the diagnosis or name attached to the condition.  By way of comparison, the VA can and does rate an individual for pain in many instances.  The Army can only rate the same painful condition if it impairs the soldier’s ability to perform assigned tasks. 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.  The rating action by the VA does not necessarily demonstrate any error or injustice in the Army rating.  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 rating.

2.  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.

3.  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

___tdh__  ___aao__  __gjw___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000043388	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000815	
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.	108.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.