RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            26 October 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2004105978


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John N. Slone                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Curtis L. Greenway            |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast         |     |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 her discharge be changed to a
medical retirement.

2.  The applicant states the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) awarded
her an 80 percent service-connected disability rating.  During her ETS
(expiration term of service) physical, the doctor requested she be extended
on active duty to address some of her more pressing physical problems.  His
request was denied. She feels if she had been allowed to be boarded, she
would have received a medical retirement.

3.  The applicant provides her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or
Discharge from Active Duty), a 15 February 2001 letter from a physician
assistant, and a DVA radiologic examination report dated 9 February 2001.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 January 1985.  She had
continuous active duty.  She was promoted to Staff Sergeant, E-6 in
military occupational specialty 31R (Multichannel Transmission Systems
Operator-Maintainer) on 1 May 1997.

2.  The DVA radiologic examination report provided by the applicant
indicates that x-rays revealed what could represent a loose body in her
right knee.

3.  On 15 February 2001, a physician assistant recommended the applicant be
allowed to extend on active duty.  She suffered a right knee injury in 1989
and had had persistent problems since.  Her history and examination
findings were consistent with a meniscal injury.  On x-ray, an abnormality
was found that her local civilian orthopedic surgeon wanted to examine
under a surgical procedure.  If she were released from active duty, she
would have to pay for the procedure out of her own pocket.

4.  On 20 February 2001, the applicant was honorably discharged upon the
completion of her required active service after completing 16 years and 20
days of creditable active service.

5.  The applicant's service medical records are not available.  None of her
Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reports (NCOERs) show that she ever
failed an Army Physical Fitness Test or had a profile or could not perform
her duties.  Her final NCOER, for the period April 2000 through February
2001, was signed by her and her rating officials on 28 March 2001.  It
indicates, in part, that she performed exceptionally well under pressure
and that she had exceptional technical and professional proficiency.

6.  Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation for physical fitness of
soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of
physical disability.  It states that the mere presence of an impairment
does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical
disability.  In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree
of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the
soldier reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office,
grade, or rank.  It 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.

7.  The Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) is
the standard under which percentage rating decisions are to be made for
disabled military personnel.  The VASRD is primarily used as a guide for
evaluating disabilities resulting from all types of diseases and injuries
encountered as a result of, or incident to, military service.  Unlike the
VA, the Army must first determine whether or not a soldier is fit to
reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating.

8.  Title 38, U. S. 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The rating action by the VA, which the applicant did not provide, does
not necessarily demonstrate an error or injustice on the part of the Army.
The VA, operating under its own policies and regulations, assigns
disability ratings as it sees fit.  The VA is not required by law to
determine medical unfitness for further military service in awarding a
disability rating, only that a medical condition reduces or impairs the
social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned.
Consequently, due to the two concepts involved (i.e., the more stringent
standard by which a soldier is determined not to be medically fit for duty
versus the standard by which a civilian would be determined to be socially
or industrially impaired), an individual’s medical condition may be
determined by the VA to be disabling whereas the Army found the individual
to be fit for duty.

2.  The evidence provided by the applicant indicates she injured her knee
in 1989.  There is no evidence of record to show she was ever given a
profile for her injury.  All of her NCOERs show that she was able to
perform her duties up through the time she separated.  There is
insufficient evidence to show she was eligible for referral to a medical
evaluation board.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jns___  __clg___  __ecp___  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.




            __John N. Slone_______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004105978                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20041026                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |108.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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