MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:    

	BOARD DATE:            14 April 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-07432
				   AR1999019558

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Kenneth Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Karen L. Wolff		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, physical disability retirement or separation.     
APPLICANT STATES:  That he became aware of his heart condition in 1994 and agreed to undergo open heart surgery.  Researching his medical records, he found that his heart problem was noted on 12 November 1968, when he was a crew chief/door gunner in Vietnam.  He was grounded from 12 November to      10 December 1968 due to pulmonic stenosis, disqualified indefinitely for a class III flight physical, but was unaware of this.  In 1970 while stationed at Fort Eustis, Virginia, he had apparent cardiac changes, and as far as he knew, he was never evaluated again.  He never knew about his heart condition until receipt of his medical records on 30 November 1994.  He states that he is in a wheel chair because of a back operation in 1986, and that he was told that he only had a 20 percent chance of living through another back operation because of his heart and pacemaker.  He is unable to participate in a VA PTSD program because of his heart.  He encloses a statement from his mother, who attest that he was not born with a heart problem, a letter from a doctor, a report from another doctor who stated that he should receive service connected disability for his heart.     

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant entered the Army on 20 November 1967, completed training as a helicopter repairman, and in May 1968 was assigned to an aviation unit in Vietnam.  On 10 December 1968 he was assigned as a crewmember crew chief with the 117th Assault Helicopter Company.  He returned to the United States in May 1969 and was assigned to Fort Eustis, and one year later was assigned to Fort Meade, Maryland.  On 15 June 1970 he requested early separation to attend school.  His request was approved and he was released from active duty on        1 September 1970.  He had 2 years, 9 months, and 12 days of service.  

A 12 November 1968 entry in the applicant’s health record indicates that the applicant was disqualified indefinitely [for flying] because on pulmonic stenosis.

A 10 December 1968 report of medical examination indicates that the applicant received a cardiology consultation on 12 November 1968, that he did have a heart murmur, and that that murmur was felt to be only functional in character.  He was medically qualified for a class III flight physical with a physical profile serial of 1 1 1 1 1 1.  In the report of medical history he furnished for the examination, the applicant stated that he was in good health. 

A 17 February 1970 radiographic report states that the cardiac silhouette appeared to be at the upper limits of normal in size, but that might be due to the straight back syndrome.  The pulmonary vascularity was within normal limits.  The impression was that of a normal chest with probably normal heart; with the suggestion that he received a clinical evaluation with respect to his cardiac status, although the examining physician stated that the apparent cardiac changes were due to the straight back syndrome.

An 18 August 1970 report of medical examination indicates that the applicant was medically qualified for separation with a physical profile serial of 1 1 1 1 1 1. In the report of medical history he furnished for the examination, the applicant stated that his health was excellent.

A 3 August 1994 medical report indicates that the applicant had been hospitalized for post traumatic stress disorder, found to have an asymptomatic heart murmur, and underwent cardiac surgery.

Medical reports in July of 1994 show that he had a pacemaker inserted.

In a 5 October 1994 letter the PTSD program director at the VA medical center in Salem, Virginia stated that the applicant was denied admission into the six week inpatient emotionally intense PTSD program because of his cardiac history. 

In a  4 November 1994 letter, the chief of cardiothoracic surgery at the VA medical center in Richmond informed the patient representative at that center that the applicant was admitted in January of 1994 for correction of a chronic atrial septal defect and mitral valve prolapse, that he had a long standing history of psychiatric disorders and was trying to connect his illness (which was congenital) with his military contact.  That person stated that the applicant’s only significant post-operative problems was that he developed heart block requiring insertion of a permanent pacemaker.

In a 15 August 1995 medical report, a director of cardiac noninvasion laboratories indicated that the applicant had extensive orthopedic problems which would required extensive surgical procedures.  However, he had cardiovascular disease which would present a high risk of potential surgical complications.

In a 9 May 1996 medical report, a physician from the Peninsula Pulmonary Associates noted that the applicant had a routine flight physical in Vietnam at which time the flight surgeon noted a systolic ejection murmur along the left sternal border.  The applicant was referred for a cardiac evaluation, and the 

examining physician noted the murmur, and that it was his opinion that the murmur was functional.  The applicant has PTSD, problems with degenerative joint disease and has had back surgery.  He is receiving a 70 percent disability rating from the VA for his back and 100 percent for PTSD.  In 1994 he was seen because of his heart murmur, and subsequently had a cardiac catheterization, and later had a pacemaker installed.  The doctor when on to describe the applicant’s current medical status, to include his pulmonary problems, his continued nicotine habituation, his past medical history, and his social history.  He did state that he thought that the applicant’s cardiac condition should be determined to be service connected.   

Title 10, United States Code, chapter 61, provides disability retirement or separation for a member who is physically unfit to perform the duties of his office, rank, grade or rating because of disability incurred while entitled to basic pay.

Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 3-3b(1), as amended, provides that for an individual to be found unfit by reason of physical disability, he must be unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating.

Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 2-2b, as amended, provides that when a member is being separated by reason other than physical disability, his continued performance of duty creates a presumption of fitness which can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that he was unable to perform his duties or that acute grave illness or injury or other deterioration of physical condition, occurring immediately prior to or coincident with separation, rendered the member unfit.

Army Regulation 40-501, at paragraph 3-3a, provided, in pertinent part, that performance of duty despite an impairment would be considered presumptive evidence of physical fitness.

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:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant's continued performance of duty raised a presumption of fitness which he has not overcome by evidence of any unfitting, acute, grave illness or injury concomitant with his separation.

2.  Service medical records do not indicate any medical condition incurred while entitled to receive basic pay which was so severe as to render the applicant medically unfit for retention on active duty.  At the time of the separation physical examination, competent medical authority determined that the applicant was then medically fit for retention or appropriate separation.  Accordingly, the applicant was separated from active duty for reasons other than physical disability.  

3.  The fact that the VA, in its discretion, may have awarded the applicant a disability rating is a prerogative exercised within the policies of that agency.  It does not, in itself, establish physical unfitness for Department of the Army purposes.

4.  The award of VA compensation does not mandate disability retirement or separation from the Army.  The VA, operating under its own policies and regulations, may make a determination that a medical condition warrants compensation.  The VA is not required to determine fitness for duty at the time of separation.  The Army must find a member physically unfit before he can be medically retired or separated.

5.  The VA 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, the applicant'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 him for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency.

6.  The applicant did not have any medically unfitting disability which required physical disability processing.  Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability retirement or separation.

7.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__klw___  ___aao__  ___tbr__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-07432/AR1999019558	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990414	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 108.00		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.