RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            31 March 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20040001531


      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. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William D. Powers             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Ronald J. Weaver              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Leonard G. Hassell            |     |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.  The applicant requests, in effect, correction of the disability rating
he received from the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he believes section number 4 of
the PEB formal hearing is incorrect.  He claims he is not at his post pre-
deployment baseline, as indicated by the diagnosis he received from a
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) doctor at the VA Medical Center,
Phoenix, Arizona.  He claims the VA doctor indicates his condition should
be treated with anticoagulation for life and that the applicant should
continue warfarin clinic care indefinitely.  As a result, the PEB’s
determination that he was at his pre-deployment baseline is incorrect.  He
further states that he has received a VA determination of service
aggravation due to his deployment to Iraq and had been permanently
separated from the military.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of his
application:  Medical Treatment Records, Medical Evaluation Board (MEB)
Proceedings, PEB Formal Proceedings and Discharge Orders.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 5 November 2003, the applicant’s medical condition was evaluated by
a formal PEB convened at Fort Lewis, Washington.  The PEB concluded that
the “Factor V Leyden Mutation/Thromboembolic” disease the applicant
suffered from was hereditary and existed prior to service (EPTS).  The PEB
further found no permanent service aggravation.  The PEB did find this
condition rendered the applicant medically unfit to perform the duties
requested of a Soldier of his rank and primary specialty.  The PEB also
found the applicant’s “Classic Migrane Stable” condition was not medically
unfitting and was therefore not ratable.  The applicant non-concurred with
the PEB findings and recommendations.

2.  On 17 November 2003, the President of the PEB notified the applicant
that his appeal had been carefully considered and his entire case was again
reviewed.  Following its review, the board adhered to the original findings
and recommendations of the formal hearing conducted in his case.

3.  The applicant was also advised that his factor five Lyden mutation is
an inherited disease and as such is not compensable in accordance with the
governing regulation unless there is a permanent service aggravation.  The
applicant was further advised that although the blood clots he suffered did
constitute service aggravation, because they had cleared up with treatment
and he was at his pre-deployment baseline, they did not represent permanent
service aggravation.  Further, even though his injury did cause a permanent
change in his condition, the condition itself was still unfitting because
of the inherent risk of reinjury from routine military activities.  The
applicant was further advised that although the Army and VA used the
Veterans Administration Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD), not all
the general policy provisions set forth in the VASRD apply to the Army.

4.  On 9 January 2004, the applicant was honorably separated from active
duty and discharged from the Army National Guard under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-40, by reason of disability EPTS.  At the time, he had
completed a total of 3 years, 11 months and 3 days of active military
service and 15 years,
1 month and 18 days of inactive service.

5.  The applicant provides medical evaluations and treatment records on
file in his military medical records.  These documents outline his medical
history and provide information regarding the treatment of the medical
conditions evaluated by the PEB.

6.  The applicant provides a medical treatment record from a VA doctor,
dated 19 February 2004.  This record indicates the treatment recommended
based on the applicant’s underlying thrombophilia and the leg trauma and
subsequent potentially life threatening problem (multiple pulmonary
emboli), was anticoagulation for life.  The doctor also recommended the
applicant continue warfarin clinic care indefinitely.

7.  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 or her office, grade,
rank, or rating.

8.  Title 38, United States Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permits the
Department of Veterans Affairs (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.  The VA can
evaluate a veteran throughout his lifetime, adjusting the percentage of
disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s request for an increase to the disability rating he was
assigned by the PEB and the supporting evidence he provided were carefully
considered.  However, the evidence of record confirms he was properly
processed through the PDES in accordance with the applicable laws and
regulations.  His case was properly considered at a formal PEB hearing and
his appeal was properly reviewed by the PEB.

2.  The arguments and medical evidence provided by the applicant were
considered and evaluated.  However, the President of the PEB addressed the
applicant’s assertions in the appeal process.  The PEB President confirmed
the applicant’s condition was inherited and that it had cleared with
treatment.  However, the condition itself was still unfitting because of
the inherent risk of reinjury from routine military activities.

3.  The record confirms all the medical evidence in the case, to include
the evidence provided by the applicant, was reviewed by the PEB during the
appellate process and it adhered to and affirmed the original findings and
recommendations.  Thus, it appears the PEB correctly applied the rules that
govern the PDES in making its determination on the applicant’s case.  The
recommendations contained in the VA medical treatment record provided by
the applicant is not inconsistent with the PEB findings and does not call
into question the disability rating assigned by the PEB and upheld in the
appeal process.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily
appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to
provide any new medical evidence that would call into question the original
decision of the PEB or the final affirmation of the PEB formal hearing.
Therefore, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting
the requested relief.
5.  The applicant is advised that he may seek further evaluation of his
conditions through the VA.  While both the Army and the VA use the VA
Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD), not all of the general policy
provisions set forth in the VASRD apply to the Army.  The Army rates only
conditions that are determined to be physically unfitting for further
military service, thereby compensating the individual for the loss of his
or her military career.  The VA, however, may rate any service connected
impairment, thus compensating for loss of civilian employment.

6.  Further, the VA may award 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.  It can
also evaluate a veteran throughout his lifetime, adjusting the percentage
of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings.  However,
any change in the disability rating granted by the VA would not call into
question the application of the fitness standards and the disability
ratings assigned by proper military medical authorities during the
applicant’s processing through the Army PDES.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___RJW_  ___WDP_  ___LGH _  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.




            ____William D. Powers__
                    CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040001531                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/03/31                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |2004/01/09                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-40                               |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Disability                              |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  177  |108.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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