MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           21 August 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001057494

	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. James E. Vick		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. William D. Barr		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 discharge be changed to a medical retirement.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was released from active duty on 23 July 1999 and entered the Army National Guard.  He had symptoms of diabetes while on active duty.  He was treated in November 1999 for diabetes and it was so severe that he was recommended as medically unfit for retention.  His medical board process was started in December 1999.  The VA originally awarded him a 20 percent disability rating.  After he appealed, it was raised to 40 percent effective 24 July 1999.  Supporting evidence is as listed on the continuation to the DD Form 149.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  Counsel makes no additional contention.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records are not available.  The information contained herein was obtained from alternate sources.

The applicant completed his enlistment physical on 23 August 1995 and apparently enlisted in the Regular Army in July 1996.  

The applicant completed a separation physical on 30 April 1999 and was found qualified for separation.  He apparently was released from active duty in July 1999.

The applicant apparently enlisted in the Army National Guard in July 1999.

On 4 November 1999, the applicant was admitted to the local civilian hospital with chief symptoms of extreme light-headedness, nausea without vomiting, and weight loss.  He was discharged on 9 November 1999 with a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus with ketoacidosis type I, uncontrolled and complication of volume depletion disorder secondary to his diabetes.

On 9 December 1999, a Medical Duty Review Board was requested to determine the applicant’s fitness for duty.  He had provided documentation showing that he was insulin dependent.

Apparently, a Medical Duty Review Board was held on 5 March 2000 and found the applicant unfit for duty.  On an unknown date, he was discharged from the Army National Guard.

On 14 April 2000, the VA granted the applicant a 20 percent disability rating for diabetes.  On 8 May 2000, the rating was increased to 40 percent.

Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation for physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability.  It states that the mere presence of an impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability.  In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the soldier reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, or rank.  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.  When a soldier is being processed for separation or retirement for reasons other than physical disability, continued performance of assigned duty commensurate with his or her rank or grade until the soldier is scheduled for separation or retirement, creates a presumption that a soldier is fit. The presumption is rebuttable and is overcome when the preponderance of evidence establishes the soldier was physically unable to perform adequately the duties of his or her office, grade or rank.

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.  The Board is empathetic with the applicant’s medical problems; however, there is no evidence to show that he was ever unfit for duty while he was in the Regular Army.  His active duty records are not available.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that he was able to continue to perform his assigned duties until the day he was released from active duty.  His Army National Guard records are not available and he provides insufficient evidence to show his discharge from the Guard was improper.

2.  The 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. 

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

__jev___  __bje___  __wdb___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001057494	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010821	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.