RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        27 September 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040011498


      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. David S. Griffin              |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Ronald E. Blakely             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Lawrence Foster               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas            |     |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, upon removal from the
temporary disability retired list (TDRL), the record be changed to show
that the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), dated 6 October 2004, recommended
a combined rating of 30 percent and that he was placed on the Retired List
due to disability.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was promised that he would be
permanently retired or placed back on the TDRL.  The applicant further
states that he did not fully understand the statements on the forms.

3.  The applicant also states that the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA)
rated his Schizophrenia as 50 percent disabling.

4.  The applicant provides excerpts from his military service records; a
copy of a DVA letter, dated 11 August 2003; and a copy of a DVA Regional
Office (VARO), New Orleans, Louisiana, Rating Decision dated 29 July 2003.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel reiterates the applicant's request for permanent retirement for
disability.

2.  Counsel cites multiple references in the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders 4th edition (DSM-IV).  These cites refer to the
symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment for Schizophrenia.  Counsel also states
that, according to the DSM-IV most studies of course and outcome in
Schizophrenia suggest that the course may be variable, with some
individuals displaying exacerbations and remissions, whereas others remain
chronically ill.  Counsel further states that according to the DSM-IV an
accurate summary of the long-term outcome of Schizophrenia is not possible.

3.  Counsel provides a brief that essentially outlines the evidence of
record and the history of the applicant's case.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military records show that he enlisted in the U.S. Army

on 11 September 1996 for a period of 6 years.  On 9 January 2001, the
applicant extended his enlistment for a period of 9 months to meet the
service remaining requirement for an overseas assignment.

2.  On 1 November 2002, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) found the
applicant medically unacceptable due to Schizophrenia, paranoid type,
manifested by paranoid delusions, command auditory hallucinations, bizarre
behavior, and blunted affect and referred him to a Physical Evaluation
Board (PEB).

3.  On 21 November 2002, the applicant indicated that he did not desire to
continue on active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40 and
that he agreed with the MEB's finding and recommendation.

4.  On 3 December 2002, a PEB found the applicant unfit for duty for
Schizophrenia, paranoid type, for which the Soldier was receiving
medication and psychiatric treatment.  The PEB recommended the applicant be
placed on the TDRL, rated 30 percent disabled, and that he be reexamined
during June 2004.

5.  On 9 December 2002, the applicant concurred with the findings and
recommendation of the PEB and waived a formal hearing of his case.

6.  On 1 February 2003, the applicant was released from active duty and
placed on the TDRL, effective 2 February 2003.  He had completed 6 years, 4
months, and 21 days of active service characterized as honorable.

7.  On 29 July 2003, VARO, New Orleans granted the applicant service
connection for Schizophrenia, paranoid type with an evaluation of 50
percent disabling.  The evaluation was based on a DVA examination dated 14
May 2003.

8.  On 30 August 2004, the applicant was given a periodic TDRL examination.
 In the Narrative Summary (NARSUM) the examiner stated that the applicant
had been stable and did not manifest any of the symptoms described during
his previous psychiatric evaluation.  The examiner also stated that the
applicant was currently a student, taking courses leading to a Bachelor of
Arts in Cyto Technology.  The examiner added that the applicant was not
psychotic and that he was not delusional or responding to auditory or
visual hallucinations.  The examiner opined that the applicant would
continue to take his medication to maintain his present level of
psychiatric remission.

9.  On 9 September 2004, the NARSUM of the periodic TDRL examination of
30 August 2004 was referred to the applicant for his concurrence/non-
concurrence with the findings.

10.  On 24 September 2004, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the TDRL
NARSUM and concurred with the findings.

11.  On 6 October 2004, a PEB found that the applicant was unfit for duty
due to  "Schizophrenia, paranoid type, requires psychotropic medication,
symptoms currently in remission, last hospitalization February 2003,
college student."

12.  The PEB recommended a combined rating of 10 percent and that the
applicant be separated with severance pay if otherwise qualified.

13.  On 13 October 2004, the applicant concurred with findings and
recommendations of the PEB and waived a formal hearing of his case.

14.  U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) Orders D292-06, dated
18 October 2004, notified the applicant that he was removed from the TDRL
and discharged from the service effective 18 October 2004 with a percentage
of disability of 10 percent.

15.  USAPDA letter, dated 24 November 2004, addressed the applicant's
appeal submitted to that agency on 25 October 2004.  The USAPDA stated that
the findings of the PEB were supported by the fact that the applicant's
condition was found to be in full remission and there was minimal evidence
of any problems associated with his condition.  The USAPDA further stated
that the applicant was provided these findings and he concurred and waived
his right to a formal hearing.  Because he waived his right to a formal
hearing he was removed from the TDRL and discharged and his case was
finalized.

16.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement,
or Separation) states, in pertinent part, that a Soldier placed on the TDRL
must undergo a periodic medical examination and PEB evaluation at least
once every 18 months to decide whether a change has occurred in the
disability for which the Soldier was temporarily retired.

17.  Army Regulation 635-40 also provides, in pertinent part, that the
medical treatment facility commander with the primary care responsibility
will evaluate those referred to him and will, if it appears as though the
member is not medically qualified to perform duty or fails to meet
retention criteria, refer the member to a MEB.  Those members who do not
meet medical retention standards will be referred to a physical evaluation
board (PEB) for a determination of whether they are able to perform the
duties of their grade and military specialty with the medically
disqualifying condition.

18.  Army Regulation 635-40 also provides that a Soldier may be separated
with severance pay if the Soldier's disability is rated at less than 30
percent, if the Soldier has less than 20 years of service as defined in 10
USC 1208 and if the Soldier's disability occurred in the line of duty and
is the proximate result of performing active duty.

19.  Title 38, United States Code, permits the Department of Veterans
Affairs (DVA) to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in
or aggravated by active military service.  The DVA 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 contends that upon removal from the TDRL he should have
been rated as 30 percent disabled and placed on the Retired List due to
disability.

2.  The applicant concurred with the PEB of 6 October 2004 and waived his
right to a hearing.

3.  The applicant contends that he was promised that he would be
permanently retired or placed back on the TDRL.  The applicant also
contends that he did not understand the statements on the forms.

4.  There is no evidence of record that any promises were made to the
applicant concerning his disability processing.  The applicant had been in
the disability processing system since November 2002.  Therefore, it is
reasonable to presume that, after previously concurring with one MEB and
one previous PEB, he was aware of his elections upon completion of a PEB.

5.  The applicant and his counsel contend that the applicant should have
been rated 30 percent and placed on the Retired List due to disability,
citing the fact that the VARO Rating Decision rated the applicant as 50
percent disabled.

6.  As stated in the DSM-IV an accurate summary for the long-term outcome
of Schizophrenia is not possible.  Therefore, the applicant's condition
could only be rated by the Army based on his condition at the time of an
examination.  The DVA examination was given on 14 May 2003 and the latest
examination, the periodic TDRL examination, was given 15 months later.
Based on the applicant's stable condition and lack of symptoms previously
manifested, he was properly rated by the Army as 10 percent disabled.

7.  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 DVA, 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.

8.  Disabilities which worsen after a Solder is separated are treated by
and compensated for by the DVA.  Any claims or issues concerning treatment
or compensation for service connected disabilities should be addressed to
that Agency.

9.  The applicant did not submit any medical evidence that would indicate
that if he had not concurred with his informal PEB, a formal PEB would have
arrived at different findings and recommendations than the informal PEB.

10.  The applicant has not submitted any evidence which would show that his
disability was not properly rated in accordance with the VA Schedule for
Rating Disabilities.  His separation with severance pay was in compliance
with law and regulation.

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

____lmd_  ____ceb__  ____lf___  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.





                                  _________Ronald E. Blakely_________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040011498                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050927                                |
|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.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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