RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        9 January 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060007083


      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. Dean L. Turnbull              |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Anderholm            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jerome L. Pionk               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Scott W. Faught               |     |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 discharge with severance pay be changed
to medical retirement.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that since the Department of Veterans
Affairs (DVA) rated him at 90 percent disabled using his Army medical
examination, he should have received at least a 30 percent disability
rating.  Also, he states that a 30 percent disability rating would have
qualified him for a medical retirement.

3.  The applicant provides:

      a.  a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge
from Active Duty);

      b.  DVA Rating Decisions, dated 14 April 2006 and 26 April 2006;

      c.  a copy of a Medical Evaluation Board (MEBD) Narrative Summary;
and

      d.  a DA Form 199 (Physical Evaluation Board Proceedings).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military records show that he entered active duty on  
29 July 2003.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual
training and was awarded military occupational specialty 91W1O (Health Care
Specialist).

2.  His records show that he had denied past psychiatric treatment;
however, his history was suggestive of dependent personality disorder.
Also, his records show that during his deployment to Iraq, he reported
having a number of stressful experiences.  He was treated at Landstuhl,
Germany with Celexa (antidepressant) and flown to Fort Carson, Colorado.

3.  On 28 February 2005, an MEBD Narrative Summary was prepared.  In that
summary it is shown that the applicant reported feeling depressed and
anxious due to being separated from his family.  Based upon standardized
psychological testing and the applicant's presentation, separation for
personality disorder was recommended.  On 16 March 2005, the applicant
discontinued using Celexa (antidepressant) and starting using a combination
of Paxil and Trazodone.  He continued psychotherapy and medication
management for three months before he requested consideration for a MEBD
rather than a chapter separation.  The applicant did not present any views
in his own behalf.
4.  On 15 September 2005, a MEBD found that the applicant had the following
medically unfitting condition; major depression.  However, his other
medical conditions, personality disorder, migraine headaches, and a hearing
loss, did not cause the applicant to fall below medical retention
standards.

5.  The applicant did not desire to continue on active duty and he did not
agree with the board’s findings and recommendation.  The applicant
submitted a rebuttal.

6.  In the rebuttal the applicant stated, in effect, that he disagreed with
the findings from the MEBD because he was still experiencing vertigo
because of the negative pressure he was having in his left ear.  Also, an
officer told him that his memory loss and his behavior were probably from
his Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).  He further stated that he just
wanted to make sure he was not being misdiagnosed since everything was
moving so fast.  The MEBD referred the applicant to a Physical Evaluation
Board (PEB).

7.  On 10 May 2006, a PEB found that the applicant was physically unfit for
duty for major depressive disorder, arising during deployment to Iraq,
manifested by depressed mood, self-doubt ruminations, impaired energy, and
suicidal ideation. This resulted in his early redeployment and limitation
from weapons.  The applicant had been compliant with treatment with
moderate improvement with further therapy recommended.  His disability was
rated as a mild industrial impairment.

8.  The PEB further found that the applicant's personality disorder, if
determined to render him unable to perform military duty, could be the
basis for an administrative rather than a medical separation.  The medical
conditions listed as migraine headaches and hearing loss were considered by
the PEB and were found not to be unfitting and therefore were not ratable.

9.  The PEB recommended a combined rating of 10 percent and that the
applicant be separated with severance pay if otherwise qualified.  The PEB
also found that the applicant's disability was not based on an injury or
disease received as a direct result of armed conflict, caused by an
instrumentality of war, or incurred during a period of war as defined by
law.

10.  The applicant did not concur with the PEB rating and demanded a formal
hearing with personal appearance.  Also, he requested to be represented by
counsel.



11.  On 26 October 2005, the applicant withdrew his request for a formal
hearing and he agreed with the original findings.

12.  On 20 December 2005, the applicant was discharged due to disability
with severance pay.  He had completed 2 years, 4 months, and 22 days of
active service that was characterized as honorable.

13.  In two letters, dated 14 April 2006 and 26 April 2006, from the DVA,
the applicant was awarded a 70 percent disability rating for PTSD with
major depressive disorder; 10 percent disability rating for cervical
strain; 
10 percent disability rating for thoracolumbar spine strain with
intermittent left leg sciatica; 10 percent disability rating for vertigo
associated with left ear surgery;  
10 disability rating for migraine headaches; 10 percent disability rating
for tinnitus; 20 percent disability rating for right shoulder impingement
syndrome and rotator cuff strain; 10 percent disability rating for cubital
tunnel syndrome, right upper extremity; and 10 percent rating for cubital
tunnel syndrome, left upper extremity.  The applicant received a combined
rating of 90 percent.

14.  Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3, provides that personality disorders
and substance use disorders may render an individual administratively unfit
rather than unfit because of physical disability.  Interference with
effective performance of duty in association with these conditions will be
dealt with through appropriate administrative channels.

15.  Title 10, United States Code, Section 1203, states upon a
determination by the Secretary concerned that a member is unfit to perform
the duties of the member’s office, grade, rank, or rating because of
physical disability incurred while entitled to basic pay or while absent,
the member may be separated from the member’s armed force, with severance
pay, if the Secretary also makes the determinations with respect to the
member and that disability, the member has less than 20 years of service;
the disability is not the result of the member’s intentional misconduct or
willful neglect, and was not incurred during a period of unauthorized
absence based upon accepted medical principles, the disability is or may be
of a permanent nature; and either the disability is less than 30 percent
under the standard schedule of rating disabilities in use by the DVA at the
time of the determination, and the disability was the proximate result of
performing active duty.

16.  Title 38, United States Code, permits the DVA to award compensation
for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military
service.  However, an award of a DVA rating does not establish error or
injustice in the Army not separating the individual for physical unfitness.
 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.  

17.  The DVA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime,
awarding and/or adjusting the percentage of disability of a condition based
upon that agency’s examinations and findings.  The DVA compensates a
veteran for industrial or social impairment.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requests that his discharge with severance pay be changed
to medical retirement.  He states that since the DVA rated him at 90
percent using his military medical examinations, he should have been rated
at least 30 percent disabled from the Army.

2.  An award of a higher DVA 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 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.

3.  The DVA rated the applicant 70 percent disabled for PTSD, a condition
not diagnosed or rated by the Army.  The Army rated the applicant for major
depression which had demonstrated moderate improvement with treatment.  The
applicant was also diagnosed by the Army with a personality disorder which
may be administratively disqualifying, but not medically disqualifying.

4.  The fact that the DVA’s diagnosis of the applicant is different than
the Army’s diagnosis does not in any way imply that the Army was in error
in its diagnosis. 

5.  The other disabilities rated by the VA were not considered medically
disqualifying and, therefore, were not ratable by the Army.  While the DVA
compensates a veteran for industrial or social impairment, the Army only
rates medical conditions which terminate a Soldier’s career.

6.  It is also noted that the applicant withdrew his request for a formal
PEB hearing and concurred with the PEB’s recommendation to discharge him
with severance pay, rated 10 percent disabled.
7.  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.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to correction
of his records to show his discharge based on medical retirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___jea___  ___jlp___  ___swf___  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.




                                  _______James E. Anderholm______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060007083                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070109                                |
|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]