MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

IN THE CASE OF: 		

BOARD DATE:                   5 April 2001
DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001051467

	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. P. A. Castle		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Ms. Celia L. Adolphi		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		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:  Reconsideration of his previous request to correct his records by showing that he received a medical discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was discharged from the Army National Guard (ARNG) because he was medically unqualified for retention.  That based on a recent determination from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) his condition is determined to be directly related to military service.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 23 June 1999 (AR1999018210).

In support of his request the applicant submits a rating decision from the VA dated 5 June 2000.  The decision grants the applicant 60 percent compensation for his heart condition and determines the condition to be service-connected.

These documents were not available to the Board previously and constitute new evidence that requires Board review.

The records reveal that a medical examination determined that the applicant’s conditions were medically disqualifying, that they were developmental and congenital, and existed prior to his enlistment in the Army.  The applicant’s request to change his discharge status to a medical discharge is based on his claim that his medical condition directly resulted in his discharge. 

The Board has previously been advised by the Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) in similar cases that the difference in military and VA ratings arises out of the basic postulates upon which disability ratings are based by the two agencies of the Government.  Military disability awards arise out of and are compensation for the military career interruption produced by an unfitting disease or injury.  VA benefits are based on the impairment of civilian career or employment arising from service-connected or aggravated disease or injury.  It is, therefore, not unexpected that these two different systems should at times produce different evaluations of the impairment arising out of the same injury or disease.

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 fact that the VA has awarded the applicant a disability rating that is not in consonance with the Army's decision, but is within the policies of that agency, does not mean that either decision is erroneous.  The VA rating does not establish physical unfitness or the degree thereof, for Department of the Army purposes.  Each department is bound to operate within its own rules, regulations, and policies.

2.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The applicant has submitted no probative medical evidence to the contrary.

3.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

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

__JH____  ____CLA_  ___HBO__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001051467	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	010405	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.