RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        14 August 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060015527


      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.

|     |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano          |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Michael J. Flynn              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Larry W. Racster              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Donald W. Steenfott           |     |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, an increase in the disability rating
he received from the Army at the time of his separation.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was given a 20 percent (%)
disability rating by the Army for only one medical condition; however, he
received a 40% disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) for multiple medical conditions at his first rating from that agency.


3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his
application:  Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Proceedings (DA Form 3947)
with associated Army medical treatment records; VA Progress Notes (86
Pages), dated
2 February 2005; Clinical Laboratory Report, dated 2 February 2005;
Radiologic Examination Report, dated 4 August 2003; and Neurology Report,
dated
11 August 2003.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 24 October 2000.  He was trained in, awarded and
served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 75F (Personnel Information
Systems Management Specialist) and he held the rank of specialist (SPC) at
the time of his separation.

2.  On 13 March 2003, an MEB convened at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, to
consider the applicant's case.  The MEB determined the applicant suffered
from Neurological disorder and impingement syndrome, which was medically
unacceptable under the governing medical standards regulation.  The MEB
determined the condition was incurred while the applicant was entitled to
base pay and that it did not exist prior to the applicant entering military
service.  The MEB referred the applicant's case to a Physical Evaluation
Board (PEB).  The MEB report included a statement indicating the
applicant’s past medical history was significant for chronic knee pain and
chronic migraine headaches.

3.  The PEB Proceedings pertaining to the applicant are not on file in the
applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and were not provided
by the applicant.  Further, a member of the Board staff contacted the
United States Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) and it was
determined a copy of the PEB Proceedings was also not on file at that
agency.

4.  The evidence does include a Report of Medical Examination, dated
12 February 2003, which lists several medical conditions the applicant was
treated for while serving on active duty.  These conditions included knee
problems, right ankle brace, fractured finger on left hand, bleeding
hemorrhoid, food and drug allergies, and migraine headaches.  There is no
indication that any of the listed conditions for which the applicant was
treated were unfitting for further service.

5.  The applicant's record also contains Headquarters, 101st Airborne
Division (Air Assault) and Fort Campbell, Kentucky, Orders Number 114-0009,
which directed the applicant's transfer to the Transition Point for
transition processing.  These orders show the applicant's discharge by
reason of disability with severance pay based on a 20% disability rating
was authorized on 16 June 2003. It also contains a properly constituted
separation document (DD Form 214) that confirms the applicant was honorably
discharged on 23 June 2003, after completing a total of 2 years and 8
months of net active service this period.  It also shows he was separated
under the provisions of Paragraph 4-24B(3), Army Regulation 635-40, by
reason of Disability-Severance Pay.

6.  The applicant provides 86 pages of VA Progress Notes, dated 2 February
2005.  Page 84 includes an assessment that indicates the following
conditions:  migraines; multiple site arthritis; RSD; hemorrhoids; and
allergic rhinitis.  It also shows a family history of heart disease, HTN,
diabetes, psychiatric disorder, hyperlipidemia, and CVA.  There is no
actual VA Rating Decision included in the packet provided by the applicant.


7.  Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army Physical Disability
Evaluation System (PDES) and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and
procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of
physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office,
grade, rank, or rating.  Paragraph 3-1 contains guidance on the standards
of unfitness because of physical disability.  It states, in pertinent part,
that the mere presence of 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 their office, grade, rank, or rating.

8.  Paragraph 3-5 of the PDES regulation contains guidance on rating
disabilities. It states, in pertinent part, that there is no legal
requirement in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity to rate a
physical condition which is not in itself considered disqualifying for
military service when a Soldier is found unfit because of another condition
that is disqualifying.  Only the unfitting conditions or defects and those
which contribute to unfitness will be considered in arriving at the rated
degree of incapacity warranting retirement or separation for disability.

9.  Title 38, United States Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permits the
Department of Veterans Affairs (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.  The VA can
evaluate a veteran throughout his lifetime, adjusting the percentage of
disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings.  However,
these changes do not call into question the application of the fitness
standards and the disability ratings assigned by proper military medical
authorities during the applicant’s processing through the Army PDES.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that he suffered from multiple medical
conditions that resulted in his receiving a 40% disability rating from the
VA, but only resulted in his receiving a 20% disability rating from the
Army and as a result, his Army disability rating should be increased was
carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support
granting the requested relief.

2.  The evidence of record does not contain the actual PEB Proceedings;
however, it does contain properly constituted separation orders and a
DD Form 214 that confirms the applicant was separated by reason of physical
disability with severance pay based on a 20% disability rating.  These
documents carry with them a presumption of regularity in the medical
separation process.  Absent evidence to the contrary, it is presumed the
applicant was properly processed through the Army PDES and that he received
a 20% disability rating based on his unfitting condition of neurological
disorder and impingement syndrome.

3.  Although the evidence of record confirms the applicant was treated for
multiple medical conditions while serving on active duty, other than the
neurological disorder and impingement syndrome condition that resulted in
his disability discharge, there is no indication that any of the other
conditions were unfitting for further service, as is required in order for
them to contribute to the
disability rating assigned by the PEB.  As a result, there is an
insufficient evidentiary basis to change the 20% disability rating assigned
the applicant at the time of his discharge.

4.  Although the applicant did not provide an actual VA Rating Decision,
the
VA Progress Notes and other treatment documents he provided do confirm his
treatment for multiple service connected medical conditions that would
support a higher disability rating from the VA.  While both the Army and
the VA use the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD), not all of the
general policy provisions set forth in the VASRD apply to the Army.  The VA
may rate any service connected impairment, thus compensating for loss of
civilian employment.  It may also award 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.
It can also evaluate a veteran throughout his lifetime, adjusting the
percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and
findings.  However, any change in the disability rating granted by the VA
would not call into question the application of the fitness standards and
the disability ratings assigned by proper military medical authorities
during the applicant’s processing through the Army PDES.  The Army rates
only conditions that are determined to be physically unfitting for further
military service, thereby compensating the individual for the loss of his
or her military career.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily
appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to
submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__MJF  __  __LWR      __DWS__  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.




                                  _____Michael J. Flynn____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060015527                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/08/14                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |2003/06/23                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-40                               |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Disability-Severance Pay                |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.       |108.0200                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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