RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 

PHYSICAL DISABILITY BOARD OF REVIEW 

BRANCH OF SERVICE:  ARMY  
SEPARATION DATE:  20030512 

 
NAME:  XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
CASE NUMBER:  PD1200896 
BOARD DATE:  20130123    
 
 
SUMMARY  OF  CASE:    Data  extracted  from  the  available  evidence  of  record  reflects  that  this 
covered  individual  (CI)  was  an  active  duty,  SPC/E-4,  (92A/Automated  Logistical  Specialist), 
medically separated for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) with chest pain syndrome.  The CI 
had  a  history  of  chest  pain/tightness,  shortness  of  breath  and  documented  atrial  fibrillation 
which involved numerous hospitals admits between 2001-2003.  In July 2002 he was diagnosed 
with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation with unclear etiology.  Despite treatment and medication, the 
CI  had  frequent  recurrences  of  his  PAF  and  could  not fulfill  the physical  requirements  of  his 
Military  Occupational  Specialty  or  satisfy  physical  fitness  standards.    He  was  issued  a 
permanent P3 profile and referred for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).  The MEB forwarded 
no other conditions for Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) adjudication.  The PEB adjudicated the 
atrial fibrillation with chest pain as unfitting, rated 10%, with application of the Veterans Affairs 
Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD).  The CI made no appeals, and was medically separated 
with a 10% disability rating.   
 
 
CI CONTENTION:  The CI elaborated no specific contention in his application.  He simply stated 
see attach medical records.    
 
 
SCOPE OF REVIEW:  The Board wishes to clarify that the scope of its review as defined in DoDI 
6040.44, Enclosure 3, paragraph 5.e. (2) is limited to those conditions which were determined 
by the PEB to be specifically unfitting for continued military service; or, when requested by the 
CI, those condition(s) “identified but not determined to be unfitting by the PEB.”  The ratings 
for  unfitting  conditions  will  be  reviewed  in  all  cases.    Any  conditions  or  contention  not 
requested in this application, or otherwise outside the Board’s defined scope of review, remain 
eligible for future consideration by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. 
 
 
RATING COMPARISON:   
 

 
 
ANALYSIS SUMMARY:  The Disability Evaluation System (DES) is responsible for maintaining a fit 
and  vital  fighting  force.    While  the  DES  considers  all  of  the  member's  medical  conditions, 
compensation  can  only  be  offered  for  those  medical  conditions  that  cut  short  a  member’s 

Code 

Service IPEB – Dated 20030312 
Condition 
Paraxysmal 
Atrial 
Fibrillation  w/chest  pain 
syndrome 
↓No Additional MEB/PEB Entries↓ 
Combined:  10% 

7010 

Rating 

10% 

Code 

VA (5 Mos. Pre-Separation) – All Effective Date 20030513 
Condition 
Rating 
Paroxysmal  Atrilal  Fibrillation 
w/chest pain 
Degenerative Arthritis R Knee 
0% X 0 / Not Service-Connected x 0 
Combined:  20% 

7010 

5010 

10% 

10% 

Exam 

20021210 

20021210 
 

career, and then only to the degree of severity present at the time of final disposition.  The DES 
has neither the role nor the authority to compensate members for anticipated future severity 
or  potential  complications  of  conditions  resulting  in  medical  separation  nor  for  conditions 
determined  to  be  service-connected  by  the  Department  of  Veterans  Affairs  (DVA)  but  not 
determined to be unfitting by the PEB.  However, the DVA, operating under a different set of 
laws  (Title  38,  United  States  Code),  is  empowered  to  compensate  all  service-connected 
conditions  and  to  periodically  re-evaluate  said  conditions  for  the  purpose  of  adjusting  the 
Veteran’s disability rating should the degree of impairment vary over time.  The Board’s role is 
confined to the review of medical records and all evidence at hand to assess the fairness of PEB 
rating  determinations,  compared  to  VASRD  standards,  based  on  severity  at  the  time  of 
separation. 
 
Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation.  The CI developed an irregularity of his cardiac pulse in 1999.  The 
condition would appear intermittently manifesting itself clinically with chest pain and shortness 
of breath.  In July 2002, a confirmed diagnosis of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) of uncertain 
etiology was made.   Cardiac echo cardiogram study obtained 25 January 2002 revealed normal 
cardiac  function  with  no  evidence  of  heart  disease.    Stress  exercise  test  (GXT)  was  normal 
demonstrating no coronary disease ischemic disease.  Laboratory evaluation for source of the 
condition  was  unrevealing.    Electrocardiogram  (EKG)  obtained  27  June  2002,  when  CI  was 
asymptomatic revealed a regular slow rhythm with nonspecific changes.  Routine chest X-rays 
were normal.  In the 12 month period prior to separation, May 2002 to May 2003; the CI was 
treated on five occasions for cardiac related symptoms with AF documented by EKG on three.  
At  the MEB/ narrative  summary  evaluation  18 December  2002, 5  months before  separation, 
cardiac  exam  and  rhythm  were  normal  with  no  findings  of  cardiac  dysfunction.    At  the 
Compensation and Pension 10 December 2002, 5 months prior to separation, the CI reported 
no cardiac symptoms.  Cardiac examination was normal and no episodes of AF were reported 
after September 2002.   
 
The Board directs attention to its rating recommendation based on the above evidence.  The 
PEB  and  VA  both  rated  the  cardiac  condition  10%,  coded  7010,  supraventricular  arrhythmia, 
both citing four episodes of AF per year documented by EKG.  A higher rating of 30% requires 
persistent  arial  fibrillation  or  paroxysmal  atrial  fibrillation  with  more  than  four  episodes  per 
year  documented  by  EKG  or  Holter  Monitor.    The  Board  agreed  that  the  AF  condition  was 
paroxysmal and noted only three episodes of AF documented by EKG in the 12 month period 
before separation.  The Board unanimously agreed that the 10% rating was appropriate.  The 
Board agreed that the CI had no documented myocardial, valvular, atherosclerotic occlusive or 
coronary  artery  disease  or  metabolic  disease  as  an  etiology  for  the  condition  for  additional 
rating and was unable to find any pathway to a higher rating using any applicable VASRD code.  
After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (Resolution of 
reasonable  doubt),  the  Board  concluded  that  there  was  insufficient  cause  to  recommend  a 
change in the PEB adjudication for the atrial fibrillation condition.   
 
 
BOARD FINDINGS:  IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military Department regulations or 
guidelines relied upon by the PEB will not be considered by the Board to the extent they were 
inconsistent  with  the  VASRD  in  effect  at  the  time  of  the  adjudication.    The  Board  did  not 
surmise  from  the  record  or  PEB  ruling  in  this  case  that  any  prerogatives  outside  the  VASRD 
were exercised.  In the matter of the atrial fibrillation condition and IAW VASRD §4.104, the 
Board  unanimously  recommends  no  change  in  the  PEB  adjudication.    There  were  no  other 
conditions within the Board’s scope of review for consideration.   

 
 
 
 
 
 
RECOMMENDATION:  The Board, therefore, recommends that there be no recharacterization of 
the CI’s disability and separation determination, as follows: 
 

UNFITTING CONDITION 
Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation 

VASRD CODE  RATING 
7010 
RATING 

10% 
10% 

 
 
The following documentary evidence was considered: 
 
Exhibit A.  DD Form 294, dated 201206, w/atchs 
Exhibit B.  Service Treatment Record 
Exhibit C.  Department of Veterans’ Affairs Treatment Record 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

           XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, DAF 
           Director 
           Physical Disability Board of Review 

 
 
 

SFMR-RB 
 
 
 
 
MEMORANDUM FOR Commander, US Army Physical Disability Agency  
(TAPD-ZB / XXXXXXX), 2900 Crystal Drive, Suite 300, Arlington, VA  22202-3557 
 
SUBJECT:  Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of Review Recommendation 
for XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX, AR20130003042 (PD201200896) 
 
 
I have reviewed the enclosed Department of Defense Physical Disability Board of 
Review (DoD PDBR) recommendation and record of proceedings pertaining to the 
subject individual.  Under the authority of Title 10, United States Code, section 1554a,   
I accept the Board’s recommendation and hereby deny the individual’s application.   
This decision is final.  The individual concerned, counsel (if any), and any Members of 
Congress who have shown interest in this application have been notified of this decision 
by mail. 
 
 BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: 
 
 
 
 
Encl 
 
 
 

     XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX 
     Deputy Assistant Secretary 
         (Army Review Boards)