APPLICANT REQUESTS: That her records be corrected to show that her separation was based on a physical disability. APPLICANT STATES: That her command failed to process her for a physical disability separation. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military and medical records show: On 29 April 1981, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army and continued through reenlistments until her separation. She completed her required training and was awarded MOS 31G (Tactical Communications). She was promoted to pay grade E-7, effective 1 November 1989. Records show that the applicant had requested assignment to her final duty station “to live closer to home prior to my discharge”. In March 1992, she was diagnosed as having ulcerative colitis and treatment was started. Records show that during the period 6 April-22 July 1992, she had progressive improvement in her condition and a reduction of medication until her condition was “well controlled, on medication”. On 28 July 1992, a physical examination cleared her for separation with a physical profile of 111111A. The physician conducting the examination indicates that he was aware of her ulcerative colitis condition and felt that it was under satisfactory control. On 24 September 1992, she was honorably separated, in pay grade E-7, under AR 635-200, chapter 4, based on the expiration of her term of service. She was transferred into the Army Reserve the following day. Her Report of Separation indicates that she had 11 years, 4 months and 26 days of creditable service. On 17 June 1993, a VA Rating Decision indicates that she had been awarded a combined service-connected disability rating of 20 percent, for (1) intermittent lumbar strain, 10 percent; (2) ulcerative colitis, 10 percent; (3) tinnitus, intermittent, 0 percent; (4) exercise induced asthma, 0 percent; and (5) hemorrhoids, 0 percent. On 2 June 1994, a VA Rating Decision increased her combined disability rating to 100 percent based an increase of her ulcerative colitis to 100 percent. On 29 April 1997, the Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) opined (COPY ATTACHED) that there was no evidence of error or injustice. Title 38, United States Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service. The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service. The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned. Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual’s medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency. 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 member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rated 30 percent disabling. 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. 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. 2. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement. 3. The evidence of record in this case does not support her contention that there was an error or injustice, since a physical examination found her medically fit for retention and cleared her for separation. Her condition was well controlled by medication. In addition, her records indicate she continued to perform her duties in a satisfactory manner until her separation from active duty. 4. The applicant voluntarily elected not to reenlist upon the expiration of her term of service. 5. 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. 6. In the absence of any evidence that she could not perform her duties, there was no basis to refer her to the US Army Physical Disability System for processing for a medical discharge. 7. 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 DENY APPLICATION Karl F. Schneider Acting Director