MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           29 March 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000046572

	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. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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 percentage of disability be increased.

APPLICANT STATES:  He believes that the Army knew his mental condition was more severe than it was.

In support of his application he submits a notification from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) dated 27 June 1997 informing him that he was granted a 100 percent disability rating for his service connected psychiatric condition effective 23 January 1992.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 August 1968, was awarded the military occupational specialty of infantryman, and served in Vietnam from 12 March 1969 to 10 March 1971.  He was honorably released from active duty on 11 March 1971 based on insufficient time remaining on his enlistment to reassign him to another unit after his return to the Continental United States.  His separation documents for that enlistment show that his significant awards included the Bronze Star Medal for Meritorious Service and the Combat Infantryman Badge.

He enlisted as prior service on 30 March 1973 and immediately reenlisted on 25 September 1974.

On 19 February 1976 the applicant was hospitalized with a diagnosis of latent schizophrenia and alcoholism.  Further evaluation revealed “thought patterns and behavioral tendencies most suggestive of a diagnosis of a schizophrenic reaction of a paranoid type.”  The applicant was then administered anti-psychotic medication and his paranoid ideation gradually improved.  During his hospitalization the applicant reconciled with his wife which brought a marked reduction in his tension and anxiety.  When the applicant was released from a patient status the psychiatrist noted that “Although the patient rapidly learned to suppress his symptoms and function well socially, he retained significant paranoid ideation.”  The applicant was then referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).

On 3 May 1976 an informal PEB convened and determined that the applicant was physically unfit due to schizophrenia, paranoid type, acute, with definite impairment of social and industrial adaptability.  The PEB also determined that since an evaluation of a permanent degree of severity was not then possible, the applicant should be transferred to the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL), rated 30 percent disabled.  The applicant concurred with that finding and recommendation.

Accordingly, on 7 June 1976 the applicant was honorably discharged due to physical unfitness and placed on the TDRL the following day.

On 8 December 1977 the applicant was given a periodic TDRL examination.  The treating physician noted that the applicant had not required any psychiatric care since his discharge and had not been taking any medications.  At that time the applicant was given a mental status examination which revealed a person who was oriented to time, place and person; who had a mood of normalcy but a blunted affect; and who had a looseness of association, disjointed thinking and some paranoid ideation but no ideas of reference or fixed delusional system.  The psychiatrist considered the applicant’s judgment for everyday affairs marginally adequate.  The applicant was diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia, paranoid type, in partial remission.  The psychiatrist opined that the applicant’s impairment of social and industrial adaptability remained definite.

On 3 January 1978 a PEB convened and determined the applicant was unfit to perform his duties due to schizophrenia, paranoid type, in partial remission, and recommended that the applicant be placed on the permanent retired list for physical disability, rated 30 percent disabled.  The applicant concurred with those findings and recommendation and waived a formal hearing.

Accordingly, on 28 February 1978 he was discharged from the TDRL and placed on the permanent retired list for physical disability the following day, rated 30 percent disabled.

The Veterans Administration Schedule For Rating Disabilities (VASRD) has been established as the standard under which percentage rating decisions are to be made for disabled military personnel.  This schedule describes a mild impairment of social and industrial adaptability of undifferentiated schizophrenia as 10 percent disabling; definite impairment as 30 percent disabling; and considerable impairment as 50 percent disabling.  The VASRD provides for a 100 percent disability rating when the condition has active psychotic manifestation of such extent, severity, depth, persistence or bizarreness as to produce total social and industrial inadaptability, and a 70 percent rating when there is lesser symptomatology such as to produce severe impairment of social and industrial adaptability.

Title 38, United States Code, 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 of the Government, 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 different rating systems are used by the Army and the DVA.  While both use the VASARD, not all of the general policy provisions set forth in the VASARD apply to the Army. 

In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor who stated that the applicant’s DVA rating, rendered 14 years after he was placed on the permanent retired list for physical disability, does not contradict the applicant’s rating by the Army.  The rating assigned by the Army was based on the applicant’s condition at the time it was rendered.

The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion and submitted a rebuttal in which he questions how a psychiatric patient taking medication can prove his mental condition is worse than what it was evaluated as being.  He continues that when he was discharged his military career was ended and he could not find employment because of his mental condition, his lack of work experience, and his history of being an infantryman and a Vietnam combat veteran.

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.  The applicant was determined by a psychiatrist to be oriented to time, place and person, to have a mood of normalcy and no ideas of reference or fixed delusional system.  While the applicant was also considered to have a blunted affect, looseness of association, disjointed thinking and some paranoid ideation, the psychiatrist considered the applicant’s judgment for everyday affairs marginally adequate, with an overall assessment that the applicant’s impairment of social and industrial adaptability remained definite.  This diagnosis was supported by the fact that the applicant had not required any psychiatric care since his discharge and had not been taking any medications.  

2.  When applying the TDRL examination results to the VASRD, it is apparent that the applicant’s condition was not a mild impairment of social and industrial adaptability, but could not be considered a considerable impairment either if he was not receiving any psychiatric treatment or taking any medication at that time.  If the applicant’s condition wasn’t severe enough to warrant a 50 percent rating, then he certainly wasn’t eligible to be rated at a 70 or 100 percent disabled.

3.  As pointed out by the ARBA Medical Advisor, the fact that the DVA rated the applicant 100 percent disabled 14 years after his discharge in no way indicates that the rating by the Army was in error.

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___  ____cjp__  ___le___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000046572	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010329	
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.	108.04	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.