APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That she be medically retired.

APPLICANT STATES:  That she should have been rated for all her medical conditions, not just her headaches.  She explains that she has constant headaches and almost total memory loss of her life prior to her accident, which is causing her problems with her marriage.  She also states that she suffers from terrible chest and spinal pain.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant’s military personnel and medical records show:

She enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 March 1984, was awarded the military occupational specialty of personnel administrative specialist, and was promoted to pay grade 
E-6.

In April 1991 the applicant was hospitalized for a motorcycle accident.  After her release from the hospital, she received follow-up medical care and physical rehabilitation.  

On 24 February 1993 a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) was convened and determined that the applicant had medical defects consisting of thoracic spondylolysis (dissolution of a vertebra), severe, post-traumatic; of lumbar spondylolysis, moderate; of myofascial pain syndrome; of flexion contracture (a high resistance to bending), right elbow; of post-traumatic vascular and tension headaches; and of bunion, left great toe.  The MEB referred her to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).  The PEB, after finding her fit for duty twice, referred her to a formal PEB which found her unfit for duty due to her vascular and tension headaches and recommended that she be discharged with severance pay, rated 10 percent disabled.  The applicant concurred with those findings and recommendation.

Accordingly, she was honorably discharged on 15 September 1993, rated 10 percent disabled, with $31,308.00 in severance pay.

Records from the VA show that the applicant has been awarded a combined disability rating of 50 percent by that department, 20 percent for limited extension of forearm, right upper; three 10 percent ratings for traumatic arthritis (for different functional body parts); 10 percent for foot condition, left lower; and zero percent for migraine headaches.

In the processing of this case an advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was obtained from the Physical Disability Agency (PDA).  The PDA stated that the applicant’s main complaints when she was medically boarded were pain, headaches and elbow stiffness.  Her military supervisor had stated that she did an adequate job with her injuries, although she often had problems concentrating, possibly because of her headaches.  Her supervisor’s main complaints were the number of medical appointments the applicant was required to go to and her inability to deploy, neither of which would constitute physical unfitness.  The PDA concluded that the applicant has not offered any evidence of error and that the VA’s rating does not indicate an error on the part of the Army.  The PDA points out that the VA does not have to find a medical condition unfitting to rate it, unlike the Army, and recommends that the applicant’s records not be changed.

Title 10, United States Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rated at least 30 percent.

Title 10, United States Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation with severance pay of a member who has less than 20 years service and a disability rated at less than 30 percent.

Title 38, United States Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the VA to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  However, an award of a higher VA rating does not establish error or injustice in the Army rating.  An Army disability rating is intended to compensate an individual for interruption of a military career after it has been determined that the individual suffers from an impairment that disqualifies him or her from further military service.  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.  Confusion arises from the fact that different rating systems are used by the Army and the VA.  While both use the Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASARD), not all of the general policy provisions set forth in the VASARD apply to the Army.  The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting, thus compensating the individual for loss of a career; while the VA may rate any service connected impairment, in order to compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability. 

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, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant’s rating by the VA does not indicate that her rating by the Army is in error.  

2.  The fact that the VA, operating under its own laws and regulations, has awarded the applicant a higher rating than the Army is only indicative of the difference between the purposes for which the ratings are assigned.

3.  The applicant has not submitted any evidence which shows that her disability was not properly rated by the Army at the time of her discharge.  For that matter, the applicant was twice found fit for duty and would have been allowed to continue her military career.  It was only on appeal to a formal board that she was finally determined physically unfit.  The two fitness for duty determinations is indicative of the relative minor nature of her disability as it pertained to her performance of her military duties.
4.  While it is understandable that the applicant believes that every medical condition she incurred while on active duty should be rated by the Army, as did the VA, the Army only awards ratings on conditions that end a soldier’s military career.  Her other medical conditions, while certainly physically limiting (and so rated and compensated by the VA as socially and industrially limiting), did not prevent her from performing her duties as a personnel administration specialist.  They are not, therefore, ratable by the Army.

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




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director