MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           27 February 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000049435

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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 records be corrected to show he was medically retired.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was barred from reenlisting due to being obese when in fact it was his service-connected disability (that caused his discharge).  He provides no supporting evidence.

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

After having had prior service, he reenlisted in the Regular Army on 2 November 1988.  He was promoted to Staff Sergeant, E-6 on 1 June 1993.

All five of the applicant’s available noncommissioned officer evaluation reports (NCOERs) for the periods ending September 1991 through the period ending November 1994 show that he successfully performed his duties as a 31D (Mobile Subscriber Equipment Transmission System Operator) and passed all his Army Physical Fitness Tests.  They also show that he had weight problems but always met the body fat standards (at least through November 1994).

The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record, DA Form 2A, dated 1 April 1994 shows he had a PULHES of 111111 (considered to possess a high level of medical fitness) and a physical category code of A (no assignment limitations).  His medical records are not available.

There is no evidence of record to show the applicant was barred from reenlisting. His Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214, shows his separation code as JBK (involuntary discharge due to completion of required active service, used for a Regular Army soldier ineligible for, barred from, or otherwise denied reenlistment who is separated on completion of enlistment) and his reentry code as 3 (disqualified for reenlistment but the disqualification is waivable).  He was discharged on 3 June 1996 upon completing his required active service after completing 11 years, 7 months, and 28 days of creditable active service.

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 purposes of his employment on active duty.  In pertinent part, it states that disability 

compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to soldiers whose service is interrupted and they can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service.

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, 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 this requirement.

2.  There is no available evidence of record to show that the applicant had any physical profile limitations at the time of his separation or that he qualified for entry into the physical disability processing system and he provides no such evidence.  His NCOERs showed that he was capable of successfully performing his duties.

3.  Any subsequent 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.  The VA is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service in awarding a disability rating, only that a medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned. 

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___  __mhm___  __rwa___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000049435	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010227	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.