MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            02 August 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000046556

	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	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. John P. Infante		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 administrative medical discharge without benefits be corrected to a discharge for physical disability, with benefits.

APPLICANT STATES:  He was unjustly discharged without benefits.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Navy on 26 August 1960, was promoted to pay grade E-4, and was honorably released from active duty on 23 July 1964.

He enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG) on a “try one” enlistment on 5 December 1981, and was honorably discharged on 4 December 1982.

He had a break in service until his enlistment in the ARNG on 27 November 1989.

On 25 June 1991, while performing 14 days of annual training as a chemical operations specialist, the applicant awoke with chest pains and was seen by a medical specialist at 0230 hours, who arranged for him to be transported to a civilian hospital.  He was then diagnosed as having suffered a mild heart attack, which caused mild damage to the underneath wall of his heart.  Angioplasty was then performed on the applicant and he was released to home on 30 June 1991.

A formal line of duty investigation was conducted on the applicant’s heart attack and it was determined that it was “In line of duty – [existing prior to service] – aggravation.”

On 21 May 1992 the applicant was given a permanent numerical designator “4” in the “P” function (physical capacity or stamina).  (The numerical designators range from “1” to “4”, with “1” indicating an individual who possesses a high level of medical fitness, and “4” indicating an individual who has one or more medical conditions or physical defects of such severity that performance of military duty must be drastically limited.  However, a “4” numerical designator does not necessarily mean that the soldier is unfit because of physical disability.)  In an undated memorandum from the applicant’s military cardiologist it was stated that the applicant could return to military duty in his military occupational specialty, and he could return to work in his civilian job.  The cardiologist indicated that he did not need to see the applicant again for a year.

On 11 September 1994, the applicant was considered by a State Medical Duty Review Board which determined that he was not world wide deployable and was not medically qualified for retention in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501, Chapter 3.  Based on that finding, the applicant was discharged on 11 April 1995 due to medical disqualification for retention in accordance with National Guard Bureau Regulation 600-200, paragraph 8-26y.
Army Regulation 635-40 provides that the medical treatment facility commander with the primary care responsibility will evaluate those referred to him and will, if it appears as though the member is not medically qualified to perform duty or fails to meet retention criteria, refer the member to a medical evaluation board.  Those members who do not meet medical retention standards will be referred to a physical evaluation board (PEB) for a determination of whether they are able to perform the duties of their grade and military specialty with the medically disqualifying condition.  For example, a noncommissioned officer who receives above average evaluation reports and passes Army Physical Fitness Tests (which have been modified to comply with the individual’s physical profile limitations) after the individual was diagnosed as having the medical disqualification would probably be found to be fit for duty.  The fact that the individual has a medically disqualifying condition does not mandate the person’s separation from the service.  Fitness for duty, within the parameters of the individual’s grade and military specialty, is the determining factor in regards to separation.  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.  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.    In this regard, the Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting, thus compensating the individual for loss of a career. 

Paragraph 8-3 of this regulation states that in order for reservists to receive compensation for disabilities incurred while they are serving on less than 30 days of active duty, there must be a determination that the unfitting condition was the proximate result of performing duty.  This determination is different from a line of duty determination which establishes whether the soldier was in a duty status at the time the disability was incurred and whether misconduct or gross negligence was involved.  Proximate result establishes a casual relationship between the disability and the required military duty.  This paragraph specifically states that myocardial infraction may be determined to be the proximate result of performing duty if precipitated by unusual physical stress occurring during the performance of extraordinary and particularly stressful military duties.

Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, Retirement or Separation for Physical Disability, provides for the retirement and discharge of members of the Armed Forces who incur a physical disability in the line of duty while serving on active or inactive duty.  However, the disability must have been the proximate result of performing military duty.

The Merck Manual of Diagnosis and Therapy states that myocardial infarctions (heart attacks) are caused in over 90 percent of patients by plaque rupture which occludes the artery, damaging the (primarily) right ventricle of the heart.
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.  While the applicant had a heart attack while he was performing 15 days of active duty, it was not precipitated by unusual physical stress occurring during the performance of extraordinary and particularly stressful military duties.  As such, he has not shown that the proximate cause of his medical condition was his performance of duty.  Therefore, he was not eligible, under law and regulation, to be retired or discharged due to physical unfitness.  

2.  The applicant was determined not to be medically qualified under the retention standards outlined in Army Regulation 40-501.  As such, his discharge without compensation due to medical disqualification was appropriate.

3.  The Board understands that the applicant believes that since he was on active duty when he suffered his heart attack he should be covered under the Army’s Disability Evaluation System.  However, this is not true under his circumstances.  The Army compensates reservists and guardsmen for disabilities they incur as a result of performing their duties.  The Army does not compensate them for disabilities that are not the result of performing their duties even if the disability had its inception while the reservist or guardsman was on active duty. 

4.  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

___rjw___  ___bje___  ___jpi __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000046556	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010802	
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.	108.05	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.