2. The applicant requests that his permanent disability rating be increased. 3. In support of his application he submits a letter from the Physical Disability Agency (PDA) dated 8 February 1996 which informed him that a quality control review by the PDA revealed an error in the assignment of his rating, but since he had already been separated, he would have to petition this Board for relief. The applicant also submits a rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) in which he is awarded a 100 percent disability rating. 4. The applicant's military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 August 1983, was awarded the military occupational specialty of supply specialist, and was promoted to pay grade E-3. He was released from active duty and transferred to a USAR unit on 3 June 1986 under the provisions of the fiscal year 1986 early release program. He was subsequently reassigned from his USAR unit to the USAR Control Group due to his failure to report to his unit. 5. He again enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 September 1989 and was awarded the military occupational specialty of motor transport operator. 6. On 29 November 1990 a medical evaluation board (MEB) convened and determined that the applicant was medically disqualified due to a schizophreniform disorder. The MEB referred the applicant to a physical evaluation board (PEB). 7. A PEB convened and recommended that the applicant be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL). That recommendation was approved and the applicant’s name was placed on the TDRL effective 6 March 1991. 8. On 4 October 1995, while the applicant was assigned to the TDRL, an informal PEB convened and determined that the applicant’s disability had stabilized and that his name should be placed on the Permanent Disability Retired List (PDRL), rated 30 percent disabled. That PEB based its decision on a finding that the applicant was unfit due to schizophrenia, chronic paranoid type in partial remission but still psychotic. The applicant disagreed with those findings and recommendation and demanded a formal hearing. 9. Accordingly, on 14 November 1995 a formal PEB was convened and recommended that the applicant be rated 50 percent disabled. Based on that recommendation, the applicant’s name was placed on the PDRL, rated 50 percent disabled, effective 10 January 1996. 10. In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained by the PDA. The PDA stated that a routine quality review by that agency discovered that an error was made by the PEB in the applicant’s rating. His condition had deteriorated to the point where he was not able to properly care for himself while he was on the TDRL. His degree of social and industrial inadaptability was determined to be total. As such, his physical condition should have been considered severely impaired by his PEB, which warrants a 70 percent disability rating, not a 50 percent rating. The PDA states that although the DVA has rated the applicant 100  percent disabled, the same rating by the Army would require the individual to be usually incompetent, hospitalized, totally out of contact with reality, requiring constant supervision and care, with significant potential to be harmful to himself or others. Therefore, the PDA recommended the applicant’s rating be increased from 50 to 70 percent disabled. CONCLUSIONS: 1. The Board accepts the PDA’s opinion that the applicant’s PEB erred when it rated him 50 percent disabled, that he should have been rated 70 percent disabled. 2. In view of the foregoing, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the name of the individual concerned was placed on the PDRL, rated 70 percent disabled, effective 10 January 1996. 2. That he be paid the moneys he is due by this action. BOARD VOTE: GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION GRANT FORMAL HEARING DENY APPLICATION CHAIRPERSON