RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         02 DECEMBER 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004103575


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

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Raymond Wagner                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas O'Shaughnessy          |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Laverne Berry                 |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, disability retirement vice
disability separation.

2.  The applicant states that during her medical review for discharge, she
was denied service connection for her asthma.  She states that she had her
first asthmatic attack in April 1997 and was taken to the emergency room.
She notes that a PFT (pulmonary function test) was done at that time which
showed mild obstructive pulmonary impairment.

3.  The applicant states that after her discharge she applied to the
Department of Veterans Affairs for disability compensation for her asthma
and was initially denied, but in June 2002 she was granted a 30 percent
disability rating for asthma.

4.  The applicant states that she was told that the Army and Department of
Veterans Affairs use the same rating scale for service-connected disability
and as such, is requesting that her Army disability be reviewed.

5.  The applicant provides a copy of a 16 June 1997 medical treatment form,
copies of her December 1997 report of medical examination, a copy of her
June 2002 Department of Veterans Affairs rating document, and a copy of her
September 2004 rating decision.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant was a member
of the United States Army Reserve when she enlisted and entered active duty
as a Regular Army Soldier on 6 January 1994.  She was trained as a
practical nurse.

2.  The 16 June 1997 medical treatment document, provided by the applicant,
indicates that she was being seen for a “follow-up” appointment.  The
document noted that the applicant was still experiencing shortness of
breath with activity, but was not wheezing, and had used Proventil (a
bronchodilator use to treat or prevent the symptoms of asthma, emphysema,
and other breathing conditions) once during the “last few days.”  It noted
that a PFT was done but the results could not be located.  The document
also noted that the applicant’s Crohn’s Disease was stable but that she was
“currently in process of [a] medical board.”  The document also noted that
the applicant complained of chronic fatigue and mild depression, which was
improved with medication.

3.  An addendum is attached to the treatment form noting that her PFT was
reviewed and showed mild obstructive pulmonary impairment, with some
improvement.  The addendum noted there was no documented history of asthma.
 The recommendation was to use Proventil and repeat the PFT in 1 to 2
months.

4.  In October 1997 the applicant was given a permanent physical profile
for Crohn’s Disease.

5.  On 10 December 1997 the applicant underwent a physical examination as
part of a Medical Evaluation Board.  The examination noted the applicant’s
Crohn’s Disease, right knee pain in 1996, and mild obstructive pulmonary
disorder.  The applicant noted a variety of medical ailments on her own
report of medical history, to include treatment for depression, an
appendectomy, motor vehicle accidents, treatment for mononucleosis, and
Crohn’s Disease with chronic loose stools, among others.

6.  On 8 January 1998 the applicant underwent a Medical Evaluation Board.
Her chief complaint was recorded as “abdominal pain, diarrhea” and the
final diagnosis was Crohn’s Disease involving terminal ileum, cecum and
right colon.  The applicant related during her Medical Evaluation Board
that she was unable to do physical training because of right lower quadrant
pain and soreness, which gets worse with activity.  There was no mention of
any asthma in the Medical Evaluation Board summary.  The Medical Evaluation
Board recommended she be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board.  The
applicant concurred with the Medical Evaluation Board findings and
recommendation.

7.  In July 1998, following the applicant’s postpartum recuperation period,
which medical personnel noted had no impact on her Crohn’s Disease, the
applicant underwent an informal Physical Evaluation Board.  The Physical
Evaluation Board concluded that the applicant’s Crohn’s Disease prevented
satisfactory performance of duty in her grade and specialty and recommended
that she be separated with a 10 percent disability rating.  The applicant
did not concur with the findings and recommendation of the informal
Physical Evaluation Board but waived her right to a formal hearing.  She
did, however, submit a written appeal.

8.  In the applicant’s undated appeal, she argued that her 10 percent
rating was insufficient.  She stated that she joined the Army with the
intention of becoming a commissioned officer and had applied to the Army
Medical Department program for nursing but because of her medical condition
was unable able to pass the physical fitness test and finish her
application.  She stated that she would continue to have increasing pain
and diarrhea related to the Crohn’s Disease and that because working on her
feet caused more pain it made it difficult for her to complete her duties
or keep a full time position.  She stated that her condition “also inhibits
[her] from working full time as a civilian.”  She asked for medical
retirement so that she could keep her medical coverage for herself and her
family, as “this has been our only source of insurance.”  She made no
mention of asthma.

9.  The United States Army Physical Disability Agency noted the applicant’s
disagreement with the Physical Evaluation Board’s findings and
recommendation, but stated that the findings and recommendations were
supported by substantial evidence and were therefore affirmed.

10.  On 17 September 1998 the applicant was honorably discharged by reason
of physical disability.

11.  In June 2002 the Department of Veterans Affairs granted the applicant
a service connected disability rating of 30 percent for asthma retroactive
to 23 June 2001.  The September 2004 rating decision notes the rating was
retroactive to
18 September 1998, the day following her discharge from the Army.

12.  Dorland’s Illustrated Medical Dictionary, 27th Edition, states that
Crohn’s Disease is a chronic granulomatous inflammatory disease of unknown
etiology, involving any part of the gastrointestinal tract from mouth to
anus, but commonly involving the terminal ileum with scarring and
thickening of the bowel wall.  It frequently leads to intestinal
obstruction and fistula and abscess formation and has a high rate of
recurrence after treatment.

13.  Army Regulation 635-40 states that disability compensation is not an
entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury;
rather, it is provided to soldiers whose service is interrupted and they
can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical
disability incurred or aggravated in service.

14.  The Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) has noted in advisory
opinions in similar cases that confusion frequently arises from the fact
that the Army and the Department of Veterans Affairs use different rating
systems.  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, because they adversely affect the individual’s
ability to perform assigned duties, thus compensating the individual for
loss of a career.  The Department of Veterans Affairs, on the other hand,
may rate any service-connected impairment, in order to compensate the
individual for loss of civilian employability or social functioning.  The
USAPDA has also pointed out that military disability ratings are based upon
the degree to which a medical condition effects the ability to perform duty
and not upon the diagnosis or name attached to the condition.  By way of
comparison, the VA can and does rate an individual for pain in many
instances.  The Army can only rate the same painful condition if it impairs
the soldier’s ability to perform assigned tasks.

15.  Title 38, United States Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permit the
Department of Veterans Affairs to award compensation for disabilities which
were incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  However, an
award of a Department of Veterans Affairs rating does not establish error
or injustice in the basis for separation from the Army.  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 Department of Veterans Affairs, 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although the applicant may have been treated for asthma, including the
one PRT while in the Army, the condition was not such that it impacted on
her ability to perform her military duties while in the Army.  The
condition was not even mentioned during the applicant’s Medical Evaluation
Board, her Physical Evaluation Board, or in her appeal of the findings and
recommendation of the Physical Evaluation Board.

2.  While the Army and Department of Veterans Affairs may utilize the same
rating codes from the VASRD, the fact that she is receiving disability
compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs, is not evidence of
any error or injustice in the Army’s rating.  The Department of Veterans
Affairs, operating under its own policies and regulations, assigns
disability ratings as it sees fit.  Any rating action by that agency does
not compel the Army to modify its reason or authority for separation.

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, 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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___RW__  ___TO __  ___LB  __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.





                                  ____ Raymond Wagner_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004103575                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20041202                                |
|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.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]