MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           25 October 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001057941

	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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		Member	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		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 earlier appeal to correct his  military records by showing that he reenlisted as an infantryman in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B for a $20,0000.00 reenlistment bonus, was promoted to pay grade E-5 and was separated due to physical disability retirement.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the dates shown on the Board’s original memorandum of consideration (MOC) were wrong and that, if the chronology was wrong, the determination was erroneous.   He contends that his command was entirely to blame for his not attending the MOS 68Q school that he enlisted for and that, since he did not enter the disability system until after he had missed his chance at this new MOS, he should be awarded a bonus for re-enlisting as an infantryman.   He was promotable as an infantryman and if he had enlisted in MOS 11B he would have been separated in pay grade E-5.  He submits copies of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) evaluations and ratings.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in an MOC prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case (AR200003997) on 7 November 2000.

The applicant’s contentions are new argument that requires Board consideration.

There is no available evidence to show that the applicant was eligible to reenlist for a $20,000.00 bonus as an infantryman or that he was promotable in that MOS.  

There are no identifiable incorrect dates in the MOC and the applicant did not specify what dates he believed to be incorrect,

Subsequent to the June 1993 separation the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) provided the applicant with service-connected disability rating of 10 percent for the left knee from 26 September 1995, 10 percent for the left shoulder from 26 September 1995, zero percent for both ankles and a broken nose and denied his claim for headaches as not well founded.  

On 25 February 2000 the VA increased the rating on both ankles to 10 percent from 27 June 1997

On 3 February 2001 the VA denied the applicant’s request for total disability, denied an increase in the zero rating for the broken nose, denied service-connection for headaches, pain from an undiagnosed illness, gastroesophageal reflux and liver abnormalities.

Title 38, United States 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.

Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth the policy and procedures for the ABCMR.  It provides that, if a request for a reconsideration is received within one year of the prior consideration and the case has not been previously reconsidered, it will be resubmitted to the Board if there is evidence (including but not limited to any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted) that was not in the record at the time of the Board’s prior consideration.  The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence has been submitted.

The regulation provides further guidance for reconsideration requests that are received more than 1 year after the Board’s original consideration or after the Board has already reconsidered the case.  In such cases, the staff of the Board will review the request to determine if substantial relevant evidence has been submitted that shows fraud, mistake in law, mathematical miscalculation, manifest error, or if there exists substantial relevant new evidence discovered contemporaneously with or within a short time after the Board’s original decision.  If the staff finds such evidence, the case will be resubmitted to the Board.  If no such evidence is found, the application will be returned without action.

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 applicant did not specify what dates were wrong nor did he explain how any mistake in chronology could have effected the outcome of the case.  He was separated for physical disability with severance pay because his disability was not severe enough to qualify for disability retirement.
 
2. The fact that the VA, in its discretion, has awarded the applicant a disability rating is a prerogative exercised within the policies of that agency.  It does not, in itself, establish physical unfitness for Department of the Army purposes.

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

__RJW__  __KAN __  __REB__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001057941	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011025	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	111.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.