MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           20 JUNE 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002067037

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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:  Disability retirement in lieu of disability separation.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he received a VA disability rating for "depression" which was not addressed in his Army disability rating.  He notes that the VA rated his eye condition at 20 percent and he received a 50 percent rating for anxiety/depression.  In support of his request he submits a copy of his October 2001 VA rating action.

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

He entered active duty, for a period of 4 years, in November 1996 after serving several years in the Army National Guard.  

In July 2000 the applicant underwent a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).  His chief complaint was listed as "chronic pain in the left eye, status post scleral buckle procedure in 1997."

The MEB summary noted that the applicant had a "history of blunt trauma to the left eye, at age 8" but was determined to be medically qualified for enlistment despite his decreased visual acuity and afferent pupillary defect.  In May 1997 he sustained another blunt trauma to his left eye when the "starter cord of a lawn mower" hit him.

As a result of the injury the applicant underwent a "scleral buckle procedure of the left eye" in June 1997.  The applicant subsequently developed chronic intermittent frontal headaches, chronic photophobia, chronic intermittent throbbing of the left eye, and "bothersome ghost images."  The MEB summary notes the applicant's symptoms were unresponsive to both oral and topical treatments and in February 2000 it was determined that his symptoms were secondary to significant anisometropia and aniseikonia (a difference in the refractive power of two eyes and a condition in which the ocular image of an object as seen by one eye differs in size and shape from that seen by the other). Attempts to treat the applicant with a special contact lens were not successful and the applicant's symptoms did not improve.  The MEB recommended the applicant be referred to a PEB (Physical Evaluation Board).  The applicant concurred with the findings and recommendation of the MEB.

On 12 September 2000 an informal PEB concluded the applicant's eye condition prevented the reasonable performance of duties required by grade and military specialty and recommended the applicant be separated with a 10 percent disability rating.  The applicant concurred with the findings and recommendation of the PEB and waived his right to a formal hearing.

On 6 December 2000 the applicant was discharged by reason of his physical disability and received more than $15,000.00 in disability severance pay.
Subsequent to the applicant's separation, in October 2001, the VA granted him a disability rating of 30 percent for "anxiety disorder with depressive features" and a 20 percent rating for "status post-retinal detachment, left eye, with associated headaches."

Title 10, United States Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years service and a disability rated at less than 30 percent.

Title 10, United States Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rated at least 30 percent.

Title 38, United States Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the VA to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  However, an award of a higher VA 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 VA, 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 VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings.

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's disability processing and separation with severance pay was in compliance with law and regulation.

2.  The Board notes that the applicant's chief complaint during his MEB was chronic pain in his left eye.  There is no indication in available records that the applicant's "anxiety disorder with depressive features," which was rated by the VA, affected his ability to perform his military duties.  The applicant, who would have been familiar with his medical ailments at the time of the MEB and PEB, concurred with the findings of both and provides no evidence that he ever raised the issue during his disability processing.

3.  The fact that the VA's rating of the applicant's eye condition was higher than the Army's rating does not necessarily demonstrate any error or injustice in the Army's rating.  The VA, operating under its own policies and regulations, assigns disability ratings as it sees fit.  Any rating action by the VA does not compel the Army to modify its rating.

4.  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 that requirement.

5.  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

__RVO__  __RWA__  __JTM __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002067037	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020620	
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.	108.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.