RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          17 February 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040001559


      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             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Thomas D. Howard              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John Infante                  |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Maribeth Love                 |     |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, that his disability separation be
changed to a medical retirement.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he would like his disability
reevaluated based on a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rating decision
of 31 March 2004.  He claims this rating decision rated him with a combined
disability percentage of 50 percent for the same disabilities rated by the
Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).

3.  The applicant provides a copy of a 31 March 2004 VA rating decision,
physical evaluation board (PEB) proceedings (DA Form 199) and his
separation document (DD Form 214) in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 1 July 1986.  He was trained in, awarded and served
in military occupational specialty (MOS) 31C (Single Channel Radio
Operator).

2.  On 1 April 1994, the applicant was honorably separated under the
provisions of paragraph 16-8, by reason of early release program-special
separation benefit (SSB).  The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he
completed a total of
8 years and 12 days of active military service and that he received a SSB
payment of $18,558.72.

3.  The applicant’s Army National Guard (ARNG) records were not made
available to the Board; however, a DD Form 214 on file confirms he entered
active duty as a member of the ARNG on 10 February 2003.

4.  On 11 December 2003, a PEB convened at Fort Lewis, Washington to
consider the applicant’s case.  The PEB found the applicant unfit for
further duty based on his condition of mild arthritis of the cervical spine
and provided him a combined rating of 10 percent.  The PEB advised the
applicant that because his disability rating was less than 30 percent and
he had not completed 20 years of service, his separation with severance pay
was required.  The applicant concurred with the findings and
recommendations of the PEB and waived a formal hearing in his case.

5.  On 23 January 2004, the applicant was honorably discharged under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, by reason of disability with
severance pay. The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he completed a total
of 9 years and
15 days of active military service and received a payment of $42,622.20 for
disability severance pay.

6.  The VA rating decision, dated 31 March 2004, provided by the applicant
shows that he received a 20 percent rating for the condition upon which the
PEB findings and recommendations were based.  The VA also found service
connection for eight other conditions that contributed to the final
combined VA disability rating given the applicant.

7.  Title 38, United States Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permit 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 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.


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that the VA rating decision he received
supported a medical discharge and the supporting documents he provided were
carefully considered.  However, the award of a VA rating does not establish
entitlement to medical retirement or separation.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was found physically
unfit for further service based solely on one medical condition.  Operating
under its own policies and regulations, the VA awarded the applicant a
disability rating based on the condition evaluated by the PEB and eight
other service connected medical conditions.

3.  The VA awards ratings because a medical condition is related to
service, i.e., service-connected and not based on unfitness for further
service, as the Army does.  Further, the VA can evaluate a veteran
throughout his/her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based
upon that agency's examinations and findings.  In this case, the applicant
is properly being evaluated, treated and compensated for his service
connected conditions by the VA in accordance with the applicable laws and
regulations.

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 this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JI ___  ___TDH _  __MBL__  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.




            ____Thomas D. Howard____
                    CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040001559                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/02/17                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |2004/01/23                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-40                               |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Disability with Severance Pay           |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |108.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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