MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:            

	BOARD DATE:                 29 June 2000            
	DOCKET NUMBER:        AR1999030781

	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. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. John N. Slone		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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 her discharge due to physical disability, with severance pay, be corrected to a medical retirement.

APPLICANT STATES:  That she should have been rated for all her medical conditions, conditions for which she was awarded ratings by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant’s military personnel and medical records could not be located.  The following information was derived from the applicant’s DD Form 214 and her DVA rating, both of which she provided the Board, and her Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) proceedings, which was provided to the Board by the Physical Disability Agency.

She enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 November 1992, was awarded the military occupational specialty of administrative specialist, and was promoted to pay grade E-4.

On 9 November 1998 a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) convened and determined that the applicant was physically unfit due to pain in both her knees with posterior cruciate ligament tear in her left knee with reconstruction with no evidence of residual ligamentous laxity in the left or right knee.  The PEB recommended that the applicant be discharged with severance pay, rated 10 percent disabled for each knee, giving her a combined rating of 20 percent disabled.  The applicant concurred with those findings and recommendation and waived a formal PEB hearing.

Accordingly, she was honorably discharged on 17 February 1999, rated 20 percent disabled, with $31,308.00 in severance pay.

Records from the DVA show that the applicant has been awarded a combined disability rating of 40 percent by that Department, 10 percent for arthralgia of both hands; 10 percent for hypothyroidism; 10 percent for status post posterior cruciate ligament repair, left; and 10 percent for anterior knee condition, right.  The applicant was also awarded zero percent ratings for five other medical conditions.

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

Title 38, United States Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the DVA to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  However, an award of a higher DVA 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 DVA, 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 DVA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency’s examinations and findings.  Confusion arises from the fact that different rating systems are used by the Army and the DVA.  While both use the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASARD), not all of the general policy provisions set forth in the VASARD apply to the Army.  The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting, thus compensating the individual for loss of a career; while the DVA may rate any service connected impairment, in order to compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability. 

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant’s rating by the DVA does not indicate that her rating by the Army is in error.  

2.  The fact that the DVA, operating under its own laws and regulations, has awarded the applicant a higher rating than the Army is only indicative of the difference between the purposes for which the ratings are assigned.

3.  While it is understandable that the applicant believes that every medical condition she incurred while on active duty should be rated by the Army, as the DVA did, the Army only awards ratings on conditions that end a soldier’s military career.  There is no indication that her other medical conditions, while certainly physically limiting (and so rated and compensated by the DVA as socially and industrially limiting), prevented her from performing her duties as an administration specialist.  They are not, therefore, ratable by the Army.

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

___jhl ___  ___jhs  __  ___mhm   DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030781	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000629	
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.	108.05	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.