APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his honorable discharge be changed to a medical discharge. APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he be placed on the Disable Retired List because the VA awarded him a combined service connected disability rating of 30 percent. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: He was born on 27 March 1948. He completed 12 years of formal education. On 18 January 1966, he enlisted into the Regular Army. On 17 January 1967, he was honorably discharged after serving 1 year of active military service. On 18 January 1967, he immediately reenlisted for 3 years. On 28 October 1968, while assigned to a unit in Vietnam, the applicant was injured in a motorcycle accident, with laceration of the left arm, including the radial nerve, and a penetrating wound of the left knee. The applicant was discharged to duty on 25 February 1969, with a temporary U-3 profile for 90 days. There is no evidence in the applicant’s military record which indicates that he was referred to a Medical Evaluation Board. On 28 July 1972, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being absent without leave from 29 September 1971 to 17 July 1972. However, particulars are missing from his file. On 1 August 1972, a physical evaluation found the applicant physically fit for retention. On 16 August 1972, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-5 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge under honorable conditions. He had completed 6 years, 6 months and 27 days of creditable active service and 292 days of lost time. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate. However, at the time of the applicant's separation the regulation provided for the issuance of a general discharge. On 17 August 1972, a VA Rating Decision awarded the applicant a combined service connected disability rating of 30 percent for residuals of lacerations of the left arm including the radial nerve and attenuation with chipped fracture left patella. Title 38, United States Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition that 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. On 14 June 1977, the Army Discharge Review Board upgraded the applicant’s general discharge to an honorable discharge. On 10 December 1996, a medical consultant for the Board, in comment (COPY ATTACHED) to this Board, opined that the applicant was medically fit for retention at the time of separation and recommended that the records not be corrected on a medical basis. 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. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement. 2. The medical evidence of record indicates that the applicant was medically fit for retention at the time of his separation. He has submitted no probative medical evidence to the contrary. 3. 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. 4. Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. 5. The foregoing, is supported by a medical consultant for this Board. 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: GRANT GRANT FORMAL HEARING DENY APPLICATION Karl F. Schneider Acting Director