MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:           20 April 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031150

	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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger Able		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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 application to correct his records by showing that he was separated from active duty due to medical disability retirement.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the recent change to his VA disability rating demonstrates that he should have been found eligible for disability retirement.  He submits a VA rating decision from 7 May 1997 showing the addition of a 10 percent rating for hemorrhoids.  His back condition is rated at 40 percent.  Additionally he submits documents relating to a civilian medical evaluation which resulted in a recommendation that he undergo 2 weeks of physical therapy.   

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case on 31 May 1995 (COPY ATTACHED).

The VA ratings are, technically, new evidence that requires Board consideration. They might point to error or injustice in the handling of the applicant’s case. 

The Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) has noted in advisory opinions in similar cases that confusion frequently arises from the fact that the Army and the DVA use different rating systems.  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, because they adversely effect the individuals ability to perform assigned duties, thus compensating the individual for loss of a career.  The DVA, on the other hand, may rate any service-connected impairment, in order to compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability or social functioning.  The USAPDA has also pointed out that military disability ratings are based upon the degree to which a medical condition effects the ability to perform duty and not upon the diagnosis or name attached to the condition.  By way of comparison, the VA can and does rate an individual for pain in many instances.  The Army can only rate the same painful condition if it impairs the soldier’s ability to perform assigned tasks. 

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 award of a VA compensation rating does not mandate change of, nor demonstrate an inequity in a military disability rating.  The VA, operating under its own policies and regulations, may make a determination that a medical condition warrants compensation.  The VA is not required to determine fitness for duty at the time of separation.  The Army must find a member physically unfit before he can be medically retired or separated.  Furthermore, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings.  The Army must find unfitness for duty at the time of separation before a member may be medically retired or separated.

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.  Additionally, the Army does not base disability ratings upon a diagnosis but upon the degree to which a condition impairs the soldier’s ability to perform duty.  In this case, the VA action and medical reports occurring years after the fact does not demonstrate that the applicant’s disability was rated incorrectly at the time of separation.

4.  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.

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

__WTM__  __RA___  __MVT __  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031150	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000420	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.04	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.