APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Reconsideration of his previous request to correct his records to show a higher percent of disability than the zero percent he received at the time of his separation.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, at the time of separation he received zero percent disability because it was stated he had improved, but, they were wrong because his condition has worsened and he has suffered over the last 
11 years.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 23 October 1991. (COPY ATTACHED).

In support of his application the applicant submits consultations and hospital records from his admissions to the Mount Sinai Medical Center in 1997 regarding esophageal replacement.  He also submits letters from four of his doctors reflecting his current condition and consultations from the Holmes Regional Medical Center and from the VA.

An advisory opinion was obtained (COPY ATTACHED)from the Department of the Army Military Review Boards Agency’s (DARBA), medical advisor who opined that there was no evidence to support the applicant’s contention and that at time of separation the applicant was properly diagnosed and rated for his condition.

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

1.  The applicant's disability was properly rated in accordance with the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities.  His separation with severance pay was in compliance with law and regulation.

2.  The applicant's contentions do not demonstrate error or injustice in the disability rating assigned by the Army, nor error or injustice in the disposition of his case by his separation from the service.

3..The foregoing are in consonance with the DARBA medical advisor’s opinion.

4.  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.

5.  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.

6.  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:

________  ________  ________  EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION

		Loren G. Harrell
		Director