RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            18 JULY 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20050017853


      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. Jessie B. Strickland          |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Lester Echols                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick McGann                |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Ernestine Fields              |     |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 her physical disability rating be
reevaluated and adjusted.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she was discharged from the
military without a complete review of her medical records by the Physical
Evaluation Board (PEB).

3.  The applicant provides copies of medical documents showing that she
underwent surgery on 10 October 2004 for a total abdominal hysterectomy and
bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy for a right sided pyosalpinx, a left sided
hydrosalpinx and uterine fibroid.  She also provides copies of the results
of her Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and her PEB.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant initially enlisted in the Georgia Army National Guard
(GAARNG) on 21 January 1984 and continued to serve in the GAARNG until she
was honorably discharged in 2000 and was transferred to the United States
Army Reserve Control Group (Troop Program Unit).

2.  On 14 April 2003, she was ordered to active duty in support of
Operation Enduring Freedom and was transferred to Iraq.  She was promoted
to the pay grade of E-6 on 27 May 2003 and in June 2003, she fell off a
landing and injured her right wrist.  She was initially evacuated to
Landstuhl, Germany and then to Eisenhower Army Medical Center at Fort
Gordon, Georgia for treatment.

3.  On 7 October 2004, a MEB conducted at Fort Gordon diagnosed the
applicant as having a slight constant chronic wrist pain due to malunion of
right wrist fracture and bilateral bunions and moderate pes planus.  The
MEB recommended that she be referred to a PEB.

4.  On 13 October 2004, the applicant was issued a Notification of
Eligibility for Retired Pay at Age 60 (20-year letter).  She had 21
creditable years of service for Retired Pay purposes.

5.  On 28 October 2004, a PEB was convened at Fort Sam Houston, Texas,
which determined that her chronic right wrist pain due to malunion of right
wrist fracture prevented reasonable performance of duties required by her
grade and specialty and determined that her disability warranted a 10%
disability rating.  In regards to her bunions and pes planus (flat feet),
the PEB determined that those conditions were not unfitting and thus were
not rated.

6.  On 15 December 2004, the applicant was discharged under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 4-24B(3) for Disability with Severance
Pay.  She had served 1 year, 8 months and 2 days of active service during
her current period of service for a total of 5 years, 3 months and 27 days
of total active service.  She received $28,098.00 in disability severance
pay benefits.

7.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the conduct and decision of the
PEB are not present in the available records.  There is also no indication
whether the applicant concurred or nonconcurred with the PEB findings at
the time or if she appealed the findings and recommendations of that board.

8.  There is a difference between the VA and Army disability systems.
While both the VA and the Army use the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities
(VASRD) to determine disability ratings, not all of the general policies
set forth in the VASRD apply to the Army; thus there are sometimes
differences in ratings.  The Army’s determination of a Soldier’s physical
fitness or unfitness is a factual finding based upon the individual’s
ability to perform the duties of his grade, rank, or rating.  If the
Soldier is found to be physically unfit, a disability rating is awarded by
the Army and is permanent in nature.  The Army system requires that the
Soldier only be rated as the condition(s) exist(s) at the time of the PEB
hearing.  The VA may find a Soldier unfit by reason of service connected
disability and may even initially assign a higher rating.  The VA’s ratings
are based upon an individual’s ability to gain employment as a civilian and
may fluctuate within a period of time depending on the changes in the
disability.

9.  Army Regulation 635-40, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement,
or Separation, provides 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 member may
reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, rank, grade
or rating.

10.  Title 38, United States Code, sections 310 and 331, 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.  Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an
individual's medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting
for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or
retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits
based on an evaluation by that agency.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that
the applicant’s disability was properly rated in accordance with the VA
Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) and her separation with severance
pay was in compliance with laws and regulations in effect at the time.

2.  While the applicant was found unfit for duty due to her wrist injury
and was assigned a disability rating of 10% for that unfitting condition,
at the time of her PEB hearing it was determined that her diagnosis for
other related conditions was not of such severity to render her unfit for
duty or to assign a disability rating.

3.  Department of the Army disability decisions are based upon observations
and determinations existing at the time of the PEB hearing.  The Department
of the Army ratings become effective the date that permanency of the
diagnosis is established.

4.  While it cannot be determined based on the evidence available in the
applicant’s records whether the PEB was made aware of the surgery the
applicant underwent just prior to the PEB, the applicant has not provided
sufficient evidence to support her contention that she was not afforded
proper disability processing or that the evaluation and the rating rendered
by the PEB was incorrect.

5.  Additionally, the applicant has provided no evidence or argument to
show that the loss of her reproductive organs rendered her unfit to perform
the duties of her grade and specialty.  Accordingly, there appears to be no
basis to reevaluate her disability rating.

6.  However, since the VA operates under different laws and regulations,
she is not precluded from filing a claim with that agency.






BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____EL__  ___PM__  ___EF __  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.





                                  ______Lester Echols______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050017853                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060718                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD)                                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |20041215                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-40                               |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |DISABILITY, SEVERANCE PAY               |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |AR 15-185                               |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|108.0200/179/%          |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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