APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, reconsideration of his previous request to increase his Army disability rating.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the Army never took action to test him for damage sustained by his head injury prior to his discharge and he has had to carry a pad around with him in order to remember things.  

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum of consideration (MOC) prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on         12 February 1997 (COPY ATTACHED).

In support of his application the applicant submits a nine page neuropsychological evaluation dated 27 January 1998 and examination reports from two different VA doctors dated 24 and 17 February 1997, respectively.  These documents describe the results of the applicant’s short and long term memory. and conclude as a diagnoses: Dementia due to head trauma.  He contends that the VA decision and diagnosis should be used as evidence to increase his Army disability.

The Board requested information from the Physical Evaluation Board Liaison Office (PEBLO) at Fort Campbell as to why the applicant was not considered for retention in the Army for the 3 months and 9 days he needed in order to make     20 creditable years for retirement at age 60.  The records indicate that on              22 September 1993 the applicant was counseled by the PEBLO regarding his option to request continuance on active duty.  The applicant stated “that he did not want to continue on active duty to complete 20 years creditable service”.

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 law and regulations cited in the Board’s prior consideration of the applicant’s case make it clear that conditions which do not render a soldier unfit for military service will not be considered in determining the compensation disability rating unless the conditions contribute to the finding of unfitness.

2.  Furthermore, the MOC points out that the Military and VA systems are essentially different.  

3.  The rating action by the VA does not necessarily demonstrate any error or injustice in the Army rating.  The VA, operating under its own policies and regulations, assigns disability ratings as it sees fit.  Any rating action by the VA does not compel the Army to modify its rating.

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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION




						Loren G. Harrell
						Director