RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        09 AUGUST 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040011697


      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:

|     |Ms. Barbara Ellis                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Kenneth Wright                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Patrick McGann                |     |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 or separation.

2.  The applicant states that “upon completion of [her] tour of duty” she
was granted a combined disability rating by the Department of Veterans
Affairs of 60 percent.  She notes the specific ratings assigned to her
feet, knees, and for her migraine headaches and asks that the rating
decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs be taken into
consideration.

3.  The applicant provides copies of her Department of Veterans Affairs
rating decisions.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Neither the applicant Official Military Personnel File, nor her service
medical records were available to the Board.  However, a copy of the
applicant’s separation document was sufficient for the Board to make a
fair, equitable, and impartial determination.

2.  The applicant’s separation document indicates that she entered active
duty on 24 January 1996 and served continuously on active duty as a member
of the Regular Army until 12 July 2004 when she was honorably discharged
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 4, for completion
of required active service.  Her separation code “KBK” indicates that her
separation was voluntary and her RE (Reentry) Code of “1” indicates that
she was fully qualified for reenlistment at the time of her discharge.

3.  The applicant was promoted to pay grade E-6 in March 2001 and her
separation document indicates that she was awarded multiple decorations,
including a Meritorious Service Medal, two awards of the Army Commendation
Medal, and three awards of the Army Achievement Medal.

4.  The applicant was granted a combined service connected disability
rating of 60 percent from the Department of Veterans Affairs.  Her migraine
headaches were independently rating at 30 percent, her right and left knee
osteoarthritis were both rated at 10 percent, her lumbosacral strain was
rated at 10 percent, and her, bilateral pes planus (flat feet) was also
independently rated at 10 percent.  Her disability rating was effective on
13 July 2004, the day following her discharge from active duty.


5.  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.  When a Soldier is being
processed for separation for reasons other than physical disability,
continued performance of assigned duty commensurate with his or her rank or
grade until the Soldier is scheduled for separation, is an indication that
the applicant is fit.

6.  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 VA rating does not establish an error or injustice in the
separation or discharge of an individual from the Army not as a result of a
disability.  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.  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 AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, that she
was physically unfit at the time of her separation from active duty in 2004
or that she had any disabling condition at the time which warranted
referral for disability processing.

2.  The fact that the applicant may subsequently have received a disability
rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs for her service incurred
disabilities is not evidence that she should have been medically retired or
separated from active duty in 2004.  A rating action by the VA does not
necessarily demonstrate any error or injustice by the Army.  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 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

___BE___  ___KW  _  __PM___  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.





                                  ______Barbara Ellis_________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040011697                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050809                                |
|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]