RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  15 November 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070007859 


	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. Michael L. Engle

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Ms. Margaret K. Patterson

Chairperson

Mr. Larry C. Bergquist

Member

Mr. Dale E. DeBruler

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 reconsideration of her earlier application that was denied; wherein, she asked for correction of the records of her disabled husband, a former service member (FSM), to show that he received a medical retirement with entitlement to full benefits.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she is submitting this request based on the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rating decision, dated 24 April 2000, showing the FSM suffered from his medical conditions prior to his leaving the service.  The applicant states that it appears the Board did not consider this VA rating decision; the Medical Board Evaluation Report, undated; or the Educational Assessment/Evaluation, dated 3 May 1998.  She argues that these documents were submitted to show that the FSM was diagnosed prior to leaving the service with such conditions as functional cognitive dysfunction, severe allergic rhinitis/conjunctivitis and left shoulder impingement syndrome.  The VA operated on his left shoulder after he left the service.  She further states that the VA examinations prove that all of the conditions the FSM has now, he had prior to leaving the service.  She also identifies the doctor's comment in the Medical Board Evaluation Report addressing the FSM's well below average academic performance on the Woodcock-Johnson psychoeducational battery.  She states also that the VA subsequently tested the FSM and found him with post traumatic stress disorder with major depression and with cognitive disorder, not otherwise specified.  The Social Security doctors concurred with the assessments from both the United States Army and the VA.  
	
3.  The applicant provides copies of the VA Rating Decision dated 26 April 2000; VA Decision on the FSM's Compensation Claim, dated 9 May 2000; Medical Board Evaluation, undated; and the Educational Assessment and Evaluation, dated 3 May 1998.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20050011773, on 16 June 2006.

2.  Records show that the FSM enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 October 1984 and was assigned to initial training as an infantryman.  On 19 February 1985, after only 4 months and 15 days of creditable active service, he was discharged due to not meeting procurement medical fitness standards-no disability.
3.  On 17 May 1988, the FSM again enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed training as a 19K2O (M1 Abrams Armor Crewman).  On 24 March 2000, he was honorably discharged due to a medical disability rated at 10 percent disabling.  He was awarded severance pay.

4.  The Child Study Committee Chairman, Kaiserslautern High School, administered the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery (Revised) Tests of Achievement to the FSM on 3 May 1998.  This educational assessment/evaluation was administered at the FSM's request.  The FSM reported that he had suffered a recent trauma and as a result felt that his academic skills had atrophied.  The examiner noted that the FSM, at the time of the evaluation, appeared healthy, although he wore a neck brace; that he was obviously nervous and appeared to be under stress.  The FSM was conscientious in his approach to the test, but became frustrated with his inability to respond and was visibly disappointed with his inadequacy.  The examiner summarized the FSM's performance as being low in broad reading and mathematics; and very low in broad written language and broad knowledge.  The examiner concluded that the FSM could be expected to experience great difficulty competing in any environment which required reading, writing, or mathematics.  

5.  The undated document titled "Medical Board Evaluation", [an enclosure to the Medical Evaluation Board held on 10 August 1999] indicates that the FSM's chief complaint was pain in his left hip and thigh, and was referred by a physician because of his inability to perform the duties of his military occupational specialty. The report also identifies that the FSM had been diagnosed by a psychiatrist with dissociative amnesia (in partial remission), and was under treatment with Prozac. The doctor commented on the FSM's academic performance as well below average on the Woodcock-Johnson psychoeducational battery and that this was a new condition.  The overall diagnosis included chronic left hip adductor tendonitis, left pectineal muscle strain, bilateral patellofemoral pain syndrome, cervical spine degenerative joint disease with neck pain, left shoulder impingement syndrome, functional cognitive dysfunction, gulf war syndrome, intermittent hematuria, severe allergic rhinitis/conjunctivitis, and dissociative amnesia, in partial remission.  The recommendation was for the FSM to be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).




6.  On 15 February 2000, the PEB determined that the FSM was physically unfit with a combined disability rating of 10 percent.  Accordingly, the PEB recommended that he be separated with severance pay.  The FSM concurred. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board fully considered the VA rating decision by displaying it as paragraph number seven of the Consideration of Evidence and analyzing its relationship to the case in paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 of the Discussion and Conclusions section. 

2.   The evidence clearly shows that the FSM suffered from medical conditions that were found to be unfitting for further military service as an armored crewman.  Accordingly, he was rated with a 10 percent disability and awarded severance pay.  The additional evidence does not show that there was an error with this decision.

3.   Furthermore, there is no evidence to substantiate that the FSM's academic skills were so low as to render him unfit to perform his military duties as an armored crewman. 

4.  The evaluation of the FSM's disability by the Physical Disability Agency more appropriately describes his condition upon separation than does the evaluation by the VA.

5.  An award of a VA rating does not establish entitlement to medical retirement or separation.  The VA is not required to find unfitness for duty.  Operating under its own policies and regulations, the VA awards ratings because a medical condition is related to service, i.e., service-connected.  Furthermore, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings.  The Army must find unfitness for duty at the time of separation before a member may be medically retired or separated.

6.   In view of the above, the applicant's request should be denied.







BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__ DED _  __MKP__  __LCB        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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20050011773, dated 15 June 2006.




_        M. K. Patterson _____
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070007859
SUFFIX

RECON
 
DATE BOARDED
20071115
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE
 
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
 
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
108.0000.0000
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.