MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:



         BOARD DATE: 12 JUNE 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002079326

         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Ms. Gale J. Thomas		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson
Mr. John P. Infante		Member
Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast		Member

         The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date. In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

         The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)

---

APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, disability retirement.

APPLICANT STATES: That the Army rated her “chronic pain” at 20 percent while the Department of Veterans Affairs rated her 30 percent. She notes that she currently has a combined disability rating of 50 percent from the Department of Veterans Affairs. She states that she believes that since she received a higher rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs that her Army discharge should be changed to medical retirement. In support of her request she submits copies of her Department of Veterans Affairs rating and copies of her service medical records.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:

The applicant had prior service as a member of the Army National Guard and was a member of the Regular Army between March 1990 and September 1991. Her 1991 discharge from the Regular Army was the result of parenthood.

On 8 May 1998 the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years. Following completion of training in the supply field, the applicant was assigned to Fort Story, Virginia as a petroleum supply specialist.

A January 2000 MEB (medical evaluation board) narrative summary notes that the applicant had complained and received treatment for chronic pelvic pain since 1996. The evaluating physician indicated that the applicant reported “severe acute lower abdominal and pelvic pain interfering with her ability to maintain fitness.” He noted that the applicant had “been managed for the last four years with multiple surgeries, tried on medical management including oral contraceptives, non-steroidal anti-inflammatories, has had a total abdominal hysterectomy without any significant relief of her pain.” He states that all “medical and surgical options in an attempt to return the patient to full duty have been attempted without success.” He recommended referral to the Army for review. The applicant concurred with the findings and recommendation of the MEB and did not submit any statements in rebuttal.

An informal PEB (Physical Evaluation Board) convened on 27 April 2000 and concluded that the applicant’s chronic pelvic pain with requirement for narcotic analgesics, prevented satisfactory performance of duty in her grade and specialty. The PEB recommended the applicant be discharged by reason of physical disability with a rating of 20 percent and entitlement to severance pay, if otherwise eligible.

The applicant concurred with the findings and recommendation of the PEB and waived her entitlement to a formal hearing.

On 31 May 2000, the applicant was discharged and received more than $12,000.00 in disability severance pay.

Subsequent to her separation, the Department of Veterans Affairs granted the applicant a 30 percent disability rating for her chronic pelvic pain and July 2002 granted her a 30 percent disability rating for “major depression.” Her combined disability rating currently stands at 50 percent.

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 a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rated at least 30 percent.

Title 38, United States Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permit the Department of Veterans Affairs (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 civilian 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. The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge, thus compensating the individual for loss of a career; while the VA may rate any service connected impairment, including those that are detected after discharge, 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, it is concluded:

1. The applicant's disability was properly rated and her separation with severance pay was in compliance with law and regulation.

2. Her contention that the Department of Veterans Affairs decision to grant her a higher disability rating for her pelvic pain shows an error or injustice in the Army rating is without foundation. The Board notes that the applicant concurred with the findings of both the MEB and PEB and provides no evidence, other than her VA rating, that the rating was wrong.

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. 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 that requirement.

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

___RVO _ __JPI___ __ECP __ DENY APPLICATION

                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002079326
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20030612
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	108.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.