MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:             11 July 200                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:     AR1999041901/AR2000041901

	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. Carl W. S. Chun.		Director	
	Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Mr. John Saputo		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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:  That his retirement for non-regular service be corrected to a medical retirement.

APPLICANT STATES:  The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) has determined that his heart attack was service connected.  Based on that ruling he believes that the Army was in error in its finding that his heart attack was an existing prior to service (EPTS) condition.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were not provided to the Board.

On 20 November 1996 a formal Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) convened and determined that the applicant was physically unfit due to “Atherosclerotic coronary artery disease, manifested by acute myocardial infraction, status post angioplasty and subsequent coronary artery bypass graft.”  However, the PEB added that “NCO was attending drill when his myocardial infraction occurred.  There is nothing to indicate unusual physical stress during the performance of extraordinary and particularly stressful military duties.”  The PEB concluded that the applicant’s physically unfitting condition was not a proximate result of his performing duty and, therefore, he was not entitled to a medical discharge with severance pay or a medical retirement.

Army Regulation 600-8-1, paragraph 41-8 states, in pertinent part, that if an existing prior to service condition was aggravated by military service, the finding will be in line of duty.  If an existing prior to service condition is not aggravated by military service, the finding will be not in line of duty, existing prior to service.  Specific findings of natural progress of the pre-existing injury or disease based on well established medical principles alone are enough to overcome the presumption of service aggravation.

Army Regulation 635-40 provides that if the PEB determines that an individual is physically unfit, it recommends the percentage of disability to be awarded which, in turn, determines whether an individual will be discharged with severance pay or retired.  Paragraph 4-19b states that a PEB may decide that a soldier’s physical defect was EPTS, but must then determine whether the condition was aggravated by military service.  If the PEB determines that a soldier has an unfitting EPTS condition which was service aggravated, the PEB must determine the degree of disability that is in excess of the degree existing at the time of entrance into the service.  The method of determining the percentage of disability to be awarded in such cases is outlined in appendix B, item B-10 of this regulation.  

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

1.  It appears that the applicant does not understand how the term existing prior to service is applied in determining whether a reservist is entitled to a medical discharge or retirement.

2.  Unlike individuals in the Regular Army who are on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, a reservist not on extended active duty only enters on a duty status during weekend drills and short periods of active duty, such as annual training.  Therefore, for a reservist the term existing prior to service indicates that the medical condition was not incurred during a weekend drill or a short period of active duty.  The fact that it occurred while the individual was a member of the reserves is not germane.

3.  The applicant had a heart attack as a result of atherosclerotic coronary artery disease.  This was not a condition which he incurred during his weekend drill.

4.  As such, the PEB’s finding that his heart attack was EPTS was appropriate and there is no reason to change it.

5.  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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		   Carl W. S. Chun
		   Director, Army Board for Correction
		   of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999041901	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000711	
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.