RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        28 July 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040008775


      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. W. W. Osborn, Jr.             |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William D. Powers             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Larry C. Bergquist            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. James B. Gunlicks             |     |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 that his disability rating be changed from 20
percent to 30  percent.  This is, in effect, a request that his records be
corrected to show that he was separated due to physical disability
retirement rather than discharged for physical disability with severance
pay.

2.  The applicant states that he had an unidentified skin condition that
was identified as rosacea by the Walter Reed Army Medical Center just
before his physical evaluation board (PEB).  However, the medical
documentation did not get into his record and the condition was not rated
by the PEB.  A similar thing happened with the Department of Veteran
Affairs (VA).  The VA would not rate the condition until the service
medical records were finally located.

3.  The applicant provides copies of his medical evaluation board (MEB)
report, his PEB report, the report and medical records of a 1 September
2004 decision from the VA, Appeals Management Center, which rated rosacea
at 30 percent, and his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge
from Active Duty).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant, a cornet/trumpet player with approximately 5 years of
active duty service developed right shoulder and neck pain, especially when
playing his horn and during vigorous physical activity.  Various
conservative therapies provided some relief, but playing his instrument
always exacerbated the pain.  A 31 August 1999 MEB provided diagnoses of
degenerative joint and disc disease of the cervical spine, myofascial pain
syndrome and rotator cuff tear of the right shoulder and referred his case
to a PEB.

2.  A 24 September 1999, a PEB found the applicant physically unfit to
perform his duties due to the three combined diagnoses.  The PEB rated his
disability at 20 percent and recommended that he be separated with
severance pay.

3.  On 4 March 2000 the applicant was discharged due to physical disability
with severance pay of $28,176.00.

4.  Medline Plus, an online health information resource provided jointly by
the National Library of Medicine and the National Institutes of Health
lists rosacea as a long-term disease that affects the skin and sometimes
the eyes. Its symptoms include redness, pimples, and, in later stages,
thickening skin.  In most cases, rosacea only affects the face.


5.  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.

6.  Army Regulation 635-40 provides that if the PEB determines that an
individual is physically unfit, it recommends the percentage of disability
to be awarded which, in turn, determines whether an individual will be
discharged with severance pay or retired.  Chapter 4 provides that a PEB
may decide that a soldier’s physical defect was EPTS, but must then
determine whether and to what extent the condition was aggravated by
military service.

7.  Title 38, United States Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permits the VA to
award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or
aggravated by active military service.  The VA, however, is not required by
law to determine medical unfitness for further military service.  The VA,
in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation
solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical
condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the
individual concerned.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no available evidence to show that the additional disabilities
rated by the VA had any adverse effect on the applicant's ability to
perform his duties.

2.  The Army PEB could rate the applicant's medical conditions only to the
extent that they impaired his ability to perform his duties and only to the
degree that the incapacity had been aggravated by the most recent period of
service.

3.  The VA on the other hand must provide compensation for disabilities
which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service and which
impair the individuals industrial or social functioning.

4.  Accordingly, it is not unusual for these two governmental agencies to
arrive at different disability ratings.  Confusion arises from the fact
that different rating systems are used but both use the Veterans
Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASARD).  However, the way
they are applied is governed by widely differing policies and concepts.



5.  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.

6.  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

__WDP__  ___LCB_  __JBG___  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.





                                       _William D. Powers_________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR                                      |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050728                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |  DENY                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |108.0200                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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