IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 18 June 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20200000476 APPLICANT REQUESTS: in effect, reconsideration of his prior request for a physical disability retirement or discharge. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States) * self-authored statement * undated audiogram * Standard Form (SF) 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 21 July 1983 * medical note, dated 28 July 1983 * Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) patient data card FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AC93-06480 on 18 May 1994. 2. The applicant states: a. He was supposed to be sent to a medical evaluation board (MEB) before his honorable discharge at the time of his expiration of term of service (ETS) on 26 September 1983. b. His separation physical shows his disabilities, which in effect prevented him from reenlisting. The Army did not send him to the board before his separation, and therefore, the board did not know he had limited scleroderma, also known as CREST syndrome. c. He applied for a clothing loan, PDSD, and unemployment disability. He continues to apply for hearing tests, however, he is never scheduled for a hearing test. 3. The applicant provided the following documents: a. A SF 88, dated 21 July 1983, that shows he complained of left wrist pain, chronic low back pain (LBP), and left knee pain. The medical examiner noted the applicant could not adequately perform maneuvers for the exam at that time, and recommended a medical board prior to his separation with proceedings to start at that time. The examiner indicated the applicant was qualified for retention only. b. A medical note dated 28 July 1983 that shows a physical profile of P3, U3, L3, H2, E1, S1. The document is annotated with the words qualified for retention only, and recommend medical board prior to separation. c. A copy of an undated incomplete audiogram form. d. A copy of his DVA patient data card for service-connected medical care. 4. The applicant enlisted in the US Army Reserve (USAR) on 13 May 1976 for a period of 6 years in the Delayed Entry Program (DEP). An audiogram was recoded on the same day. 5. He was discharged from the DEP enlisting in the Regular Army (RA) on 26 May 1976 for a period of 3 years. 6. His records from 1977 show: a. A Standard Form (SF) 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care), dated 19 April 1977, from the Troop Medical Clinic (TMC) shows a complaint of headaches (HAs) and stomach cramping that began while playing basketball. b. A TMC SF 600, dated 28 April 1977, shows he was seen for a complaint of LBP. The examiner indicated chronic severe HAs, and LBP. c. A TMC SF 600, dated 3 May 1977, shows he was seen again for his continued complaints of HAs and back. d. A TMC SF 600, dated 7 June 1977, shows he was seen again for his continued complaints of HAs and LBP. The examiner indicated a history of trauma during a basketball game where the applicant fell and hit the front of his head, and that he experiences HAs every now and then. e. A TMC SF 600, dated 29 June 1977, shows a complaint for recurrent LBP. A physical exam produced minimal spasms of the lumbar area with flexion at the waist. f. A TMC SF 600, dated 25 August 1977, shows complaints of right foot pain after jumping off a truck, back pain from playing basketball, and stomach pain. g. A TMC SF 513 (Consultation Sheet), dated 10 November 1977, shows the applicant was referred to physical therapy for his persistent LBP following an April 1977 basketball injury that is relieved on occasion with a prescribed muscle relaxant. An x-ray of the lumbar spine showed negative findings. Moderate minimal muscle spasms were noted on the form. 7. His records from 1978 show: a. A TMC SF 600, dated 16 February 1978, shows a complaint of chronic LBP. The applicant was experiencing pain on forward flexion at the waist and on leg raising while lying on his back. b. A TMC SF 600, dated 2 March 1978, shows a chief complaint of his back, and a secondary complaint of left knee pain from playing basketball. There were no physical differences between his knees on examination. c. A TMC medical note, dated 8 June 1978, shows the applicant’s complaint for HAs and back pain from a fall one-year prior. d. A TMC medical note, dated 14 June 1978, shows applicant’s complaints of abdominal pain and LBP after running for physical training. e. A TMC medical note, dated 29 August 1978, shows the applicant was seen on several occasions for his HAs and LBP since his fall the prior year. On this day, he reported worsened back pain and that his HAs have returned. f. A TMC SF 600, dated 30 August 1978, shows the applicant’s recurrent LBP, and HAs due to trauma. The form indicates an x-ray recommendation to rule out spondylolisthesis of the spine. g. A TMC SF 600, dated 28 September 1978, shows the applicant complained of recurrent HAs due to trauma. The applicant stated his HAs were frequent since his fall, and that he experiences dizziness and pressure over the eyes. h. A TMC SF 600, dated 3 October 1978, shows the applicant’s complaint of a bump on the anterior aspect of his left wrist for 3 days. An objective examination showed a stationary hardness on the left wrist. The medical assessment indicated a ganglion. i. A TMC SF 600, dated 5 October 1978, shows a complaint the applicant’s complaint of chronic LBP, that he stated resulted from a basketball injury two-years prior. He had a full range of motion (ROM) without tenderness on examination. j. A TMC SF 513, dated 5 October 1978 1978, shows the applicant was referred to physical therapy for complaints of recurrent LBP from a 1976 basketball injury, and that treatment at the clinic had been unsuccessful. k. A DA Form 3349 (Medical Condition-Physical Profile Record), dated 11 October 1978, shows the applicant was medically qualified for limited duty for 30 days due to his chronic LBP. l. A TMC SF 600, dated 3 November 1978, shows a long history of HAs in the applicant’s records of HAs. The form notes a normal ROM of the applicant’s head and neck., a normal ROM of head/neck, and chronic HAs of unknown etiology, and chronic HAs of an unknown etiology. m. A Medical Department Activity (MEDDAC) Form 1317-R (Optometric Clinical Record), dated 3 November 1978, shows a two-year history of HAs after hitting the left side of his head during a fall while playing basketball. n. A TMC SF 600, dated 22 November 1978, shows a continued complaint of LBP. An examination showed good ROM that was slightly limited with forward bending with an assessment of chronic LBP in the bilateral lumbar region. o. A DA Form 3349, dated 22 November 1978, shows the applicant was medically qualified for limited duty for 30 days due to his chronic LBP. 8. His records from 1979 show: a. A DA Form 3349, dated 22 January 1979, shows the applicant had chronic LBP with limited duty for 30 days. b. He had an immediate reenlistment on 26 February 1979. c. A dispensary (DISP) SF 600, dated 27 February 1979, shows the applicant complained of upper abdominal pain, and LBP for two weeks. d. A DISP SF 600, dated 5 March 1979, shows the applicant complained of right arm pain over a period of four days after he had blood drawn. e. He had an immediate reenlistment on 27 September 1979. f. Orders 192-8, dated 3 October 1979, published by the Headquarters, 573rd Personnel Service Company, Fort Bragg, NC, shows the applicant was honorably discharged on 26 September 1979. 9. His records from 1980 show: a. A SF 513, dated 15 February 1980, shows the applicant was referred to the audiology clinic for an evaluation of his bilateral high frequency sensorial hearing loss. b. An emergency room (ER) SF 600, dated 3 June 1980, shows in part, the applicant’s complaint of a swollen wrist, complaints of his HAs and knees secondary to his basketball injury two years prior, and his initial injury in 1976 playing basketball. c. An ER SF 600, dated 9 June 1980, shows the applicant’s complaint of his hand back and both legs that bothered him since his 1976 accident. The form noted a long history of LBP for three years, and a full ROM of the spine, hips and knees. d. An ER SF 600, dated 19 June 1980, shows the applicant complained of HAs, back pain, and a left knee injury, and stating he fell on a basketball floor in 1976. e. A medical note, dated 26 June 1980, shows the applicant complained of HAs while at work and exercising, left knee pain with activity, and his LBP history. The form shows that no defects or abnormalities were found, and a recommendation for referral to internal medicine. f. A SF 600, dated 1 July 1980, shows the applicant complained of frequent HAs with dizziness when running and rising quickly from a chair. g. A SF 600, dated 15 July 1980, shows the applicant complained of back and leg pain. He also complained of HAs that he had experienced on/off the last four years. A physical examination was not remarkable. h. An audio evaluation record shows he was tested on 22 July 1980. i. An audiology clinic SF 513, dated 29 July 1980, shows the applicant was referred to the ear, nose, throat (ENT) clinic for a moderate high frequency sensorial hearing loss evaluation. j. An ER SF 513, dated 29 July 1980, shows the applicant was referred to the orthopedic clinic for chronic LBP, HAs, and knee joint pain after doing his ordinary work lifting heavy objects. The form notes several clinic consultations and emergency room visits without pertinent findings, but with subjective pain k. A DA Form 3349, dated 26 August 1980, shows the applicant was returned to his unit qualified for duty with permanent assignment limitations due to his bilateral predominantly high frequency nerve type hearing loss. The form shows the findings and recommendations were approved on 2 September 1980. l. A consultation report, dated 12 December 1980, shows x-rays of the applicant’s knees and lumbosacral spine revealed, that other than congenital changes at the lumbosacral junction, the general findings of the lumbar spine both knees were normal. m. An ER SF 513, dated 12 December 1980, shows a consultation report for a nodule on the left wrist with no significant changes after a 2-year history, mechanical LBP, and bilateral knee pain secondary to his old Osgood-Schlatter condition, and recommendations of a physical therapy consultation for his back. 10. His records from 1981 show: a. A consultation report, dated 9 February 1981, shows continued complaints of low back pain that transitions to his shoulders and neck that produced HAs. He also complained of swelling in the knees, and left wrist pain. b. A radiographic report, dated 13 February 1981, shows an incomplete fusion of the spinous process at the last lumbar segment with normal spinal alignment. The form also shows, that other than congenital changes at the lumbosacral junction, the general findings of the lumbar spine and both knees were normal. c. An orthopedic clinic SF 600, dated 31 March 1981, shows the applicant was seen for generalized aches and pains after his commander sent him to acquire a physical profile. The clinical impression showed back pain associated with congenital anomalies with an obscure etiology, knee pain related to running possibly related to genu varus which is congenital, and a dorsal ganglion of the left wrist. d. A DA Form 3349, dated 31 March 1981, shows the applicant was qualified for limited duty due to mild genu varus. He was issued a 90-day temporary profile with no running beyond his pace and tolerance. 11. His records from 1982 show: a. A SF 600, dated 7 May 1982, shows the applicant continued to complain of his knees that give-out when walking for long periods or running, back pain following his basketball injury with intermittent sharp pain across the lumbosacral area of the spine, HAs that occur twice a week, and left wrist pain. b. An orthopedic SF 600, dated 6 October 1982, shows a reference to a hyperextension injury and blow to the head during a 1978 basketball game. The form also shows a left knee without a history of trauma, a cystic swelling of the left wrist, and trace tenderness of the left paraspinous area. 12. His records from 1983 show: a. Orders 108-71, dated 3 June 1983, published by the Headquarters, 5th Infantry Division (Mechanized) and Fort Polk, show he was assigned to the 5th Replacement Detachment pending a decision on his application for a compassionate reassignment. b. Orders 188-2, dated 7 July 1983, published by the US Army Regional Personnel Center, Nurnberg, show he was assigned to the Military Entrance and Processing Station New Orleans, LA. c. A SF 600, dated 20 July 1983, shows the applicant’s knees were within normal limits following a McMurray’s test, a ganglion cyst of the left wrist, and back pain radiating up his right side. d. A SF 93 (Report of Medical History), dated 21 July 1983, shows the applicant reported he was in fair health, however, with problems with his low back, left wrist, and occasional HAs. e. A SF 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 21 July 1983, shows he complained of his left wrist, back, and left knee. The form also shows his upper extremities were abnormal on examination, and that he could not adequately perform maneuvers for the examination. f. A medical note, dated 28 July 1983, shows a physical profile of P3, U3, L3, H2, E1, S1, and that he was qualified for retention only. The note also included a recommendation for a medical board prior to his separation. g. Orders 162-32, dated 19 August 1983, published by the Headquarters, 5th Infantry Division (Mechanized) and Fort Polk, show he was relieved from active duty not by reason of physical disability. He was reassigned to the US Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Reinforcement). h. A SF 88, dated 9 September 1983, shows an ETS physical examination was conducted that shows a normal clinical evaluation, however, with reported problems due to a back strain, left wrist pain, and his knee cap that prevented the applicants inability to perform certain motions or assume certain positions. The form shows the examining physician’s summary of chronic LBP secondary to degenerative joint disease. i. Orders 180-81, dated 15 September 1983, published by the Headquarters, 5th Infantry Division (Mechanized) and Fort Polk, show he was discharged from the RA on 26 September 1983. j. A family practice clinic SF 600, dated 26 September 1983, shows the applicant was playing basketball for the Army when he was injured in a fall during a game. 13. The applicant’s available records do not contain documentation pertaining to his injuries that prevented him from performing his assigned duties for his grade and rank, or that required a permeant physical profile with a recommendation for a medical evaluation board. 14. A DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), service copy 2, shows he completed 4 years, 0 months, and 0 days of active duty service for the period from 27 September 1979 to 26 September 1983. He had 3 years, 4 months, and 1 month of prior active service. He held the military occupation specialty (MOS) of 72G as a data communications center specialist. He was honorably discharge for completion of his required service. 15. A Veterans Administration (VA) rating decision, dated 27 February 1984, shows the applicant’s initial claim for service connection for his back, left wrist, bilateral knees, and hearing loss. The back and knee conditions were determined to be constitutional or developmental abnormalities without aggravation beyond normal progression. There was no hearing loss determination since the enlistment and discharge examinations essentially showed the same levels of loss. 16. A VA Form 21-4138 (Statement in Support of Claim), dated 16 August 1984, shows the applicant appealed the hearing loss determination by the VA, and requested another exam to clear up the matter. 17. A VA appeal decision, dated 31 October 1984, shows entitlement to service connection for the hearing loss was denied. It was determined to be not incurred in, or aggravated by his military service. The recent VA examination showed no significant hearing loss. 18. A VA Form 21-4138, dated 24 January 1985, shows the applicant canceled a VA hearing to consider his hearing loss determination by the VA. He requested reconsideration of the denial of service connection for his back and bilateral knee conditions, and consideration for amending his claim to include service connection of arthritis, severe HAs, and high blood pressure. 19. A SF 507 (Clinical Record), dated 12 March 1985, shows a reported history of a 1977 in-service injury where the applicant was momentarily knocked unconscious, and reported HAs upon regaining consciousness. 20. A VA rating decision, dated 19 August 1985, shows the applicant’s hypertension and HAs were not service connected and not compensable. 21. A VA appeal decision, dated 5 September 1985, shows entitlement to service connection for the back and knee conditions was not established. The conditions are constitutional or developmental abnormalities without permanent service aggravation. 22. A Board of Veterans Appeals decision, dated 4 April 1986, shows entitlement to service connection for the bilateral hearing loss, a low back disorder, and a bilateral knee disorder was not established. His appeal was denied. 23. An undated advisory from the Office of the Surgeon General (OTSG), shows the applicant applied to the ABCMR requesting to change his honorable discharge to a medical disability retirement due to his orthopedic problems. The OTSG recommended the request be denied since there was no evidence that the applicant was unfit for further military duty at his time of separation. 24. On 18 May 1994, the Board in Docket Number AC93-06480, determined the evidence did not demonstrate an error or injustice, and denied the request to change his honorable discharge. 25. The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge, which disqualify the Soldier from further military service. The Army disability rating is to compensate the individual for the loss of a military career. The VA does not have authority or responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service. The VA may compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability. 26. Title 38, CFR, part IV is the VA’s schedule for rating disabilities. The VA awards disability ratings to veterans for service-connected conditions, including those conditions detected after discharge. As a result, the VA, operating under different policies, may award a disability rating where the Army did not find the member to be unfit to perform his duties. 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. 27. Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permit the VA to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service. However, an award of a VA rating does not establish an error or injustice on the part of the Army. 28. MEDICAL REVIEW: The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor was asked to review this case. Documentation reviewed included the applicant’s ABCMR application and accompanying documentation, the military electronic medical record (AHLTA), the VA electronic medical record (JLV), the electronic Physical Evaluation Board (ePEB), the Medical Electronic Data Care History and Readiness Tracking (MEDCHART) application, and the Interactive Personnel Electronic Records Management System (iPERMS). The ARBA Medical Advisor made the following findings and recommendations: a. The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting a referral to the Disability Evaluation System (DES). He states “I was supposed to be sent to a medical board. The Army did not do this. On my separation physical it shows my disabilities.” b. The Record of Proceedings details the applicant’s military service and the circumstances of the case. The DD 214 associated with his discharge shows he entered a period of service in the regular Army on 27 September 1979 and was honorably discharged on 26 September 1983 under the separation authority provided by chapter 4 of AR 635-200, Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel (1 October 1982): Separation for Expiration of Service Obligation. It shows that he had 3 years, 4 months, and 1 day of total prior active service. His military separation code of JBK denotes “Completion of Required Active Service.” c. His medical records from 1977 thru 1983 show he was seen for a number of complaints over the years. He injured his low back in April 1977 while playing basketball. Some pain persisted and he was seen by physical therapy. The therapist wrote “Patient reported pain free after 1 treatment only.” He was also both evaluated and treated for headaches in 1977. He continued to be seen intermittently for both headaches and low back pain thru 1983. No clear etiology was identified for either condition and both were treated conservatively. d. He was seen by orthopedics in April 1979. The history written by the provider: “Backache started with blow to the back and hyperextension. Now is exacerbated by running and lifting heavy objects. There is no radiculopathy. There are bilateral knee problems at the tibial tubercle left > right, and a ganglion cyst on the left wrist.” e. The remainder of this clinical encounter is missing. f. He was placed on a non-duty limiting permanent profile for high frequency hearing loss in August 1980 g. He was seen by orthopedics for low back, bilateral knee pain, and left wrist pain in February 1981. Other than some mild patellar crepitus on the right and a ganglion cyst at the left wrist, the examination was unremarkable with the provider noting “His musculature is outstanding all over which belies any musculoskeletal problem.” The provider concluded: “There is nothing we can do to help this young man. Aspirin does not give him any relief and physiotherapy hasn’t helped. He is obviously strong and the inability to bear weight on the flexed wrist is really no disadvantage. I believe he is suffering from back pain of undetermined etiology and a chronic sprain of the left wrist. h. The applicant underwent a reenlistment physical examination on 21 July 1983. The physician wrote on the Report of Medical Examination: “Applicant complaining of left wrist, back, and left knee pain. He cannot adequately perform maneuvers for today’s exam.” The blocks for upper extremities and lower extremities were marked abnormal without comment. He went on to note the applicant was “qualified for retention only (Chap 3). Recommend medical board prior to separation. Should start proceedings now.” i. A 28 July 1983 untitled medical document containing several vision tests shows the applicant having serial 3’s for the physical, upper extremity, and lower extremity portions of his PULHES. Written on the unsigned document is “Qualified for retention only. Recommend medical board prior to separation.” j. Chapter 3 is of AR 40-501 (1 September 1983) is titled “Medical Fitness Standards for Retention and Separation Including Retirement (Short Title: Retention Medical Fitness Standards): k. Paragraph 3-1 and the first two sentences of paragraph 3-3a: 3-1. Scope This chapter sets forth the various medical conditions and physical defects which may render a member unfit for further military service. 3-3. Policies a. Members with conditions listed in this chapter will be evaluated by a medical board and WILL BE REFERRED TO A PHYSICAL EVALUATION BOARD (except for members of the Reserve Components not on active duty). However, this chapter provides general guidelines and is not to be taken as a mandate to the effect that possession of one or more of the listed conditions means automatic retirement or separation from the service. l. The handwriting on the two documents noted above is different, with both writers stating the applicant was qualified for retention, and the physician stating the applicant met chapter 3 of AR 40-501, Standards of Medical Fitness, retention standards. However, because he met medical retention standards, there was no apparent reason for their recommendation that he be referred to a medical board prior to his separation. m. In a VA note dated 12 March 1985: “Examinee has had intermittent aching low back pain and left knee intermittent aching pain for about 6 years.” n. Paragraph 2-1 of AR 635-40, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation (1 August 1982) states: “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 member reasonably may be expected to perform because of his office, grade, rank, or rating.” o. There is no evidence the applicant had any medical condition which would have failed the medical retention standards of chapter 3, AR 40-501 prior to his discharge. Thus, there was no cause for referral to the Disability Evaluation System. Furthermore, there is no evidence that any medical condition prevented the applicant from being able to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating prior to his discharge. p. It is the opinion of the ARBA Medical Advisor that a referral of his case to the Disability Evaluation System is not warranted. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the military record, the Board found that relief was not warranted. The applicant’s contentions, the military record, a medical review, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. Based upon a preponderance of the evidence, the Board concurred with the findings and recommendation of the medical reviewer, and agreed there was insufficient evidence that shows the applicant had a condition that did not met retention standards. Therefore, referral to the DES is not warranted. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :XX :XX :XX DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket AC93-06480 on 18 May 1994. I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, provides the Secretaries of the Military Departments with authority to retire or discharge a member if they find the member unfit to perform military duties because of physical disability. The U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency is responsible for administering the Army physical disability evaluation system and executes Secretary of the Army decision-making authority as directed by Congress in chapter 61 and in accordance with DOD Directive 1332.18 and Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation). 2. Army Regulation (AR) 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), in effect at the time provided the standards for medical retention. a. Chapter 3 provides that members with conditions as severe as listed in this chapter are considered medically unfit for retention on active duty and are referred for disability processing. b. Chapter 7, provides that the basic purpose of the physical profile serial system is to provide an index to the overall functional capacity of an individual and is used to assist the unit commander and personnel officer in their determination of what duty assignments the individual is capable of performing, and if reclassification action is warranted. Four numerical designations (1-4) are used to reflect the different levels of functional capacity in six factors: P-physical capacity or stamina, U-upper extremities, L- lower extremities, H-hearing and ears, E-eyes, and S-psychiatric (PUHLES). Numerical designator 1 under all factors indicates an individual is considered to possess a high level of medical fitness and is medically fit for any military assignment. Numerical designators 2 and 3 indicate an individual has a medical condition or physical defect which requires certain restrictions in assignment within which the individual is physically capable of performing military duty. Numerical designator 4 indicates an individual has one or more medical conditions, or physical defects, of such severity that performance of military duty must be drastically limited. The numerical designator 4 does not necessarily mean the individual is unfit because of a physical disability as defined in AR 635-40. 3. Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army Disability Evaluation System and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating. Only the unfitting conditions or defects and those which contribute to unfitness will be considered in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity warranting retirement or separation for disability. a. Paragraph 3-1, provided 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 member reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, rank, grade, or rating. Only the unfitting conditions or defects and those which contribute to unfitness will be considered in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity warranting retirement or separation for disability. b. Paragraph 3-2, provided that disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury, rather it is provided to those Soldiers whose service is interrupted and they can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in military service. c. Paragraph 3-4 states Soldiers who sustain or aggravate physically-unfitting disabilities must meet the following line-of-duty criteria to be eligible to receive retirement and severance pay benefits: (1) The disability must have been incurred or aggravated while the Soldier was entitled to basic pay or as the proximate cause of performing active duty or inactive duty training. (2) The disability must not have resulted from the Soldier's intentional misconduct or willful neglect and must not have been incurred during a period of unauthorized absence. 4. Title 38, United States Code, permits the DVA (VA) to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service. However, an award in the form of a DVA rating does not establish an error or an injustice on the part of the Army. The Army rates only those conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge, which disqualify the Soldier from further military service. The DVA awards disability ratings to veterans for service-connected conditions, including those conditions that are detected after a member’s discharge to compensate for their loss of civilian employability. The two agencies, operating under different policies, may arrive at different disability ratings based on the same impairment. 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. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20200000476 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1