RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            03 AUGUST 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003099489


      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.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock             |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Fred Eichorn                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John Meixell                  |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Gail Wire                     |     |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.  In effect, the applicant requests physical disability retirement.

2.  The applicant states that he was discharged because of his medical
condition and received separation pay; however, he did not receive a
medical discharge.  The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has awarded him
a 50 percent service connected disability rating.  The Army should have
given him something other than separation pay.  Had he received a medical
[board], the Army would have to pay him for the rest of his life.  The
option offered to him was separation pay or nothing.  He questions why he
was told to extend his enlistment.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his 30 May 2003 DD Form 214
(Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), a copy of a
notification of MOS (Military Occupational Specialty)/Medical Retention
Board (MMRB) proceedings, copies of memorandums concerning his retention on
active duty, copies of his commanding officers' evaluations of his physical
condition, a copy of a VA rating decision, a copy of his 27 February 2003
reassignment orders, and copies of his medical records.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that he entered on active duty on
        4 August 1991 and remained on continuous active duty until his
discharge in pay grade E-5 on 30 May 2003.  Documents show three periods of
reenlistment – on 1 May 1992 for 3 years, 11 January 1995 for 4 years, and
3 December 1997 for  3 years.  In addition, documents that the applicant
submits with his request show that his ETS (expiration of term of service)
was extended on four occasions, the last until 30 November 2002, for the
purpose of a pending Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) or until orders were
received for medical separation/retirement.

2.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that he was a military policeman,
that he served in Cuba and in Saudi Arabia, and that he completed various
military courses, to include a special forces school, airborne course,
primary leadership development course, and military police school.  He
received numerous awards, to include two awards of the Army Commendation
Medal and five awards of the Army Achievement Medal.  Additionally, his
records show service in Germany, Fort McClellan, Alabama, Fort McPherson,
Georgia, Fort Benning, Georgia, and Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

3.  The applicant's evaluation reports show that his rating officials
considered him a fully capable Soldier.  The report for the six month
period ending in December 1997 while assigned to a military police company
in Germany shows that he scored 252 on the May 1997 Army Physical Fitness
Test (APFT) out of a possible score of 300.  His report for the nine month
period ending in February 1999 while assigned to a military police company
at Fort McPherson shows that he passed the APFT in October 1998, and that
his rater indicated that he was mentally and physically tough and
demonstrated his mettle daily while serving in stressful situations.

4.  The applicant's evaluation report for the nine-month period ending in
November 1999 shows that he was granted a physical profile in July of that
year; however, his rater stated that his profile did not interfere with his
job performance.  His senior rater stated that he should attend BNCOC
(basic noncommissioned officer course), that he should be assigned to
challenging leadership positions, and that he had the potential to develop
into an outstanding leader.

5.  His report for the eight-month period ending in July 2000 shows that he
was granted a physical profile in January 2000, that his rater indicated
that he was mentally and physically tough and that he demonstrated his
stamina daily in a very stressful position, but that his profile limited
his ability to shine.  His rater stated that he was a fully capable NCO.
His senior rater stated that he had unlimited potential.

6.  The applicant's succeeding four evaluation reports, while assigned to
positions as a military policeman with a military police company at Fort
McPherson, all show that his rating officials considered him among the best
noncommissioned officers, and that his profile did not hinder his ability
to perform his duties.  His senior rater stated on his last report, ending
in February 2003, that he should be promoted ahead of his peers, should be
sent to BNCOC, and that he had the potential to perform at a higher level.

7.  The applicant's medical records show that he was treated for bilateral
knee pain on numerous occasions, going back to 1993, and that the applicant
himself stated that he had knee pain since 1988.  A 2 March 1994
radiological report of his bilateral knees, however, showed no fracture,
dislocation, or abnormal soft tissue.  A 17 June 1996 report of medical
history shows he had bilateral knee pain.  A 22 December 1999 radiologicial
examination report of his right knee indicated a normal right knee.  He was
treated for pain to his knees in September, October, and December 2000.  On
21 December 2001 he was diagnosed with arthritis in both knees.

8.  The applicant was treated for pain to his right wrist in 1991.  A 1994
radiological report of his wrist indicated no problems noted.  He was
treated for bilateral hand pain on 6 September 1996.
9.  The applicant was evaluated for Wolff-Parkinson-White (WPW) syndrome on
27 February 1995.

10.  Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome.  In a normal heart, electrical signals
use only one path when they move through the heart.  This is the atrio-
ventricular or A-V node.  As the electrical signal moves from the heart's
upper chambers (the atria) to the lower chambers (the ventricles), it
causes the heart to beat.  For the heart to beat properly, the timing of
the electrical signal is important.  If there's an extra conduction
pathway, the electrical signal may arrive at the ventricles too soon.  This
condition is called Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome (WPW).  It's in a
category of electrical abnormalities called "pre-excitation syndromes."

      a.  It's recognized by certain changes on the electrocardiogram, which
is a graphical record of the heart's electrical activity.  The ECG
will show that an extra pathway or shortcut exists from the atria to the
ventricles.

      b.  Many people with this syndrome who have symptoms or episodes of
tachycardia (rapid heart rhythm) may have dizziness, chest palpitations,
fainting or, rarely, cardiac arrest.  Other people with WPW never have
tachycardia or other symptoms.  About 80 percent of people with symptoms
first have them between the ages of 11 and 50.

      c.  People without symptoms usually don't need treatment.  People with
episodes of tachycardia can often be treated with medication, but sometimes
such treatment doesn't work.  Then they'll need to have more tests of their
heart's electrical system.

      d.  The most common procedure used to interrupt the abnormal pathway
is radiofrequency or catheter ablation.  In this, a flexible tube called a
catheter is guided to the place where the problem exists.  Then that tissue
is destroyed with radiofrequency energy, stopping the electrical pathway.
Successful ablation ends the need for medication.  Whether a person will be
treated with medication or with an ablation procedure depends on several
factors.  These include the severity and frequency of symptoms, risk for
future arrhythmias and patient preference.

11.  On 21 August 1995 the applicant received a temporary profile
precluding him from physical training or taking the Army Physical Fitness
Test (APFT).  He was treated for WPW in April, May, and June 1996.

12.  In May 1996 he was evacuated from Germany to the United States for
evaluation of his WPW at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC).  A
medical report shows that he was treated at Walter Reed on 20 May 1996.
That report shows that he had undergone a successful ablation of a lateral
accessory in November 1995, and that he had been referred to Walter Reed
for a repeat attempt at radiofrequency ablation.  He underwent a successful
radiofrequency ablation of a left anteroseptal accessory pathway via the
transaortic retrograde approach.  He was granted 7 days of convalescent
leave prior to his return to Germany.

13.  A 15 September 1997 report of medical examination conducted at an Army
health clinic in Baumholder, Germany, shows that the applicant was
medically qualified for continued service with a physical profile serial of
1 1 1 1 1 1

14.  The applicant continued to be treated for his WPW syndrome.  He was
treated for hypertension and WPW syndrome in October 1997 at the 2nd
General Hospital in Germany.  He was seen for his WPW syndrome on 4
November 1997.

15.  He was treated in October 1998 at the Eisenhower Medical Center and
evaluated using a Holter, a diagnostic tool for long term outpatient ECG
monitoring.  The diagnosis given was that of a predominate normal sinus
rhythm and no arrhythmia (irregular heart rhythm).  He was treated for his
WPW syndrome on various occasions in 1999, underwent another Holter
evaluation on 15 March 1999, with the same results, and was seen for
hyperlipidemia in July 1999.

16.  The applicant continued to be seen and treated for his WPW syndrome in
2000.  He was treated for hypertension and fatigue in September 2000.  An
October 2000 medical report shows that he was pending a Medical Evaluation
Board for WPW syndrome and bilateral knee pain.

17.  In January 2001 he was seen for his WPW syndrome.  A 1 February 2001
stress echocardiogram report shows that the applicant was on Atenolod, that
he had no chest pain, that he had a normal exercise echo, and that the
results were negative for myocardial ischemia.

18.  On 16 March 2001 the applicant's commanding officer informed the
Commander of the Eisenhower Medical Center at Fort Gordon that the
applicant's performance was generally excellent; however, his physical
condition and profile did prevent him from engaging in strenuous physical
activity.  He stated that the applicant had been diagnosed with WPW
syndrome, and that the Deputy Commander of the Lawrence Joel Health Clinic
at Fort McPherson indicated that the applicant's condition required his
separation from the Army.

19.  A 27 March 2001 report of medical examination shows that he was
qualified for a medical board with a physical profile serial of 3 1 1 1 1
1.  The report indicated that he had hypertension, a history of bilateral
wrist pain, osteoarthritis bilateral knees, a 10-year history of recurrent
back pain, and frequent headaches.

20.  An 18 April 2001 medical report shows that he was seen for
hyperlipidemia and referred to patient education.  A 7 June 2001 medical
report shows that he was referred to cardiology for a MEB, and that he was
to continue his current medications.  The applicant was seen and treated
for his WPW syndrome throughout 2001.

21.  A January 2002 report shows that an exercise test report was normal
and negative for ischemia.

22.  In a 3 February 2003 memorandum the applicant's commanding officer
stated that the applicant had a chronic medical condition which would
prevent him from participating in the APFT program, and that consequently,
he was ineligible for reenlistment because of his medical condition.

23.  On 27 February 2003 orders were published effecting the applicant's
discharge and indicated that he was authorized full separation pay in
accordance with the provisions of 10 U.S.C., section 1174.  On 30 May 2003
the applicant was discharged in the rank of sergeant, pay grade E-5, under
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 4, completion of
required active service.  He had over 12 years of active service.  His SPD
code on his DD Form 214 is "JBK." He received over $32,000.00 in separation
pay.

24.  On 25 September 2003 the VA awarded the applicant a 10 percent service
connected disability rating for degenerative changes to his thoracic spine
(claimed as back pain), a zero percent rating for bilateral cataracts, a
zero percent rating for right and left carpal tunnel syndrome, a 10 percent
rating for WPW syndrome, a zero percent rating for gastroesophageal reflux
with history of duodenal ulcer, a 20 percent rating for instability to his
right knee (claimed as arthritis), a 20 percent rating for instability to
his left knee (claimed as arthritis), and a zero percent rating for
hypertension.

25.  Army Regulation 601-280 outlines uniform procedures for immediate
reenlistment or extension of expiration of term of service (ETS) for active
Army Soldiers, and states in pertinent part that Soldiers otherwise
qualified, may reenlist or extend their current enlistment provided that
action does not cause the Soldier to exceed the retention control point by
more than 29 days.  The retention control point for a sergeant E-5 is 15
years.
26.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 prescribes the specific authorities and
reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD (separation
program designator) codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.  The SPD code,
"JBK" on a Soldier's DD Form 214 indicates that the Soldier was
involuntarily discharged upon completion of his required active service,
and that he was ineligible for, barred from, or otherwise denied
reenlistment.

27.  U.S.C. 10, Section 1174 authorizes separation pay to a regular
enlisted Soldier who has six or more but less than 20 years of active
service immediately before his discharge and who is discharged
involuntarily or as the result of the denial of his reenlistment.
Department of the Army Circular 635-92-1, in implementing this statute,
states in effect, that full separation pay is authorized for Soldiers
otherwise fully qualified for retention but involuntarily separated, who
were denied reenlistment or continuation on active duty under established
retention control points (RCP) provisions of Army Regulation 601-280 and
separated at ETS.

28.  Army Regulation 40-501 governs the medical fitness standards for
enlistment, induction, and appointment; and the medical fitness standards
for retention and separation, including retirement.  Chapter 2 of that
regulation concerns physical standards for enlistment, appointment, or
induction, and states in pertinent part that one of the causes for
rejection (for enlistment, induction, etc.) is an accelerated
atrioventricular conduction (Wolff-Parkinson-White Syndrome).  Chapter 3
pertains to medical fitness standards for retention and separation and
gives the various medical conditions and physical defects which may render
a Soldier unfit for further military service.  It states that Soldiers with
conditions listed in that chapter who do not meet the required medical
standards will be evaluated by a MEB and will be referred to a Physical
Evaluation Board (PEB).  Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome is not a condition
listed in chapter 3 as a condition rendering a Soldier unfit for retention
in the Army or separation from the Army.

29.  Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army physical disability
evaluation system and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures
that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical
disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or
rating.  It provides for medical evaluation boards, which are convened to
document a Soldier’s medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is
affected by the Soldier’s status.  A decision is made as to the Soldier’s
medical qualifications for retention based on the criteria in AR 40-501,
chapter 3.  If the MEB determines the Soldier does not meet retention
standards, the board will recommend referral of the Soldier to a PEB.

30.  Physical evaluation boards are established to evaluate all cases of
physical disability equitability for the Soldier and the Army.  It is a
fact finding board to investigate the nature, cause, degree of severity,
and probable permanency of the disability of Soldiers who are referred to
the board; to evaluate the physical condition of the Soldier against the
physical requirements of the Soldier’s particular office, grade, rank or
rating; to provide a full and fair hearing for the Soldier; and to make
findings and recommendation to establish eligibility of a Soldier to be
separated or retired because of physical disability.

31.  Army Regulation 635-40 states in pertinent part that disability
compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred
illness or injury; rather, it is provided to Soldiers whose service is
interrupted and they can no longer continue to reasonably perform because
of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service.

32.  That paragraph goes on to say 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.

33.  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.

34.  Title 38, United States Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permit the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to award compensation for disabilities
which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  However,
an award of a higher VA rating does not establish error or injustice in the
Army rating.  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.  The VA, which has neither the
authority, nor the responsibility for determining physical fitness for
military service, awards disability ratings to veterans for conditions that
it determines were incurred during military service and subsequently affect
the individual’s civilian employability.  Accordingly, it is not unusual
for the two agencies of the Government, operating under different policies,
to arrive at a different disability rating based on the same impairment.
Furthermore, unlike the Army, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his
or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that
agency’s examinations and findings.  The Army rates only conditions
determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge, thus
compensating the individual for loss of a career; while the VA may rate any
service connected impairment, including those that are detected after
discharge, in order to compensate the individual for loss of civilian
employability.  A common misconception is that veterans can receive both a
military retirement for physical unfitness and a VA disability pension.  By
law, a veteran can normally be compensated only once for a disability.  If
a veteran is receiving a VA disability pension and the ABCMR corrects the
records to show that a veteran was retired for physical unfitness, the
veteran would have to choose between the VA pension and military
retirement.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Notwithstanding the applicant's contention, he was not discharged
because of his medical condition, but discharged with separation pay
because he was ineligible for reenlistment, having reached the retention
control points for his rank of sergeant.

2.  The applicant's medical condition, WPW, was addressed throughout his
military career, and apparently treated successfully.  The medical records
that he submits with his request shows that he was diagnosed with WPW at
least as early as 1995.  He reenlisted in December 1997, after having
undergone two surgical procedures for his condition, an indication that he
was medically fit for continued service.  Tests conducted subsequent to
this reenlistment do not reflect that his condition required referral to an
MEB, in spite of the references thereto.  The applicant performed his
duties admirably as shown by the comments of his rating officials on his
evaluation reports.  His condition did not affect his performance of duty.


3.  The fact that the VA, in its discretion, has 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.  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.

5.  Although his condition, WPW syndrome, is a cause for rejection for
enlistment in the Army, the condition does not prevent a Soldier from being
retained in the Army, as indicated by the applicant's continued service
after having been diagnosed with WPW syndrome; and is not a reason for
referral into the physical disability evaluation system.  The applicant did
not have any medically unfitting disability which required physical
disability processing.  Therefore, there is no basis for physical
disability retirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___FE __  ___JM___  ___GW__  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 for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.





            _____Fred Eichorn_______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2003099489                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040803                                |
|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.       |108.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]