RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           28 September 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20050018217


      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. G. E. Vandenberg              |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Paul M. Smith                 |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Alice Muellerweiss            |     |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, that the Existed Prior to Service
(EPTS) with no disability percentage determination be changed to medical
separation with a disability percentage based on aggravation of a
previously existing condition.

2.  The applicant states his discharge with the "Existed Prior to Service
-0" determination is unfair.  His eye condition did get worse while on
active duty and he has been told that his military service did aggravate
the condition.

3.  The applicant provides copies of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty) and 23 pages from his service
medical records.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The records show the applicant entered active duty on 8 February 2001,
completed training and was awarded the military occupational specialty
(MOS) 11C (Indirect Fire Infantryman).

2.  The applicant's military medical records are on permanent loan to the
Department of Veterans Affairs and are not available for Board review.  The
medical records and documentation referenced herein were provided by the
applicant.

3.  There is no indication that the applicant was diagnosed with or
receiving medical care for retinitis pigmentosa at or prior to his entrance
onto active duty.

4.  He first began complaining of eye problems in the summer of 2002 and
was provided eyeglasses at that time.

5.  The applicant was afforded a medical examination on 20 May 2003.  The
attending physician rendered the diagnosis of hereditary retinal dystrophy
and retinitis pigmentosa with constricted visual fields.  The applicant, on
being told of his condition, stated he had not had any recent eye injuries
but had been noticing some lose of night and peripheral vision.  His case
was referred for a medical evaluation board (MEB).

6.  MedlinePlus (an internet service of the United States National Library
of Medicine and National Institutes of Health) defines retinitis pigmentosa
as an eye disease in which there is damage to the retina.  The damage gets
worse (progresses) over time, night and peripheral vision is gradually lost
although it is uncommon for the condition to lead to complete blindness.
Retinitis pigmentosa commonly runs in families and is caused by a number of
genetic defects.  Signs and symptoms often first appear in childhood, but
severe visual problems do not usually develop until early adulthood.  The
main risk factor is a family history of retinitis pigmentosa and there is
no effective treatment for this condition.

7.  The June 2003 MEB found the applicant had correctable vision to 20/20
bilaterally, normal intraocular pressure, and full field of vision.  There
was a finding of significant bone spicule (dark pigmented spots in the
retina) changes and significant peripheral visual field constriction.
Further dark adaptation testing shows reduced rod and cone signals and a
delayed rod-cone break with an elevated final threshold.

8.  The MEB determined he had hereditary retinitis pigmentosa and did not
meet retention standards under Army Regulation 40-501 paragraphs 3.15.a,
3.15.f, and 3.16.d.  Separation processing was recommended.

9.  On 3 August 2003 a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) found the applicant
unfit for duty.  His retinitis pigmentosa was determined to be congenital,
existing prior to his entrance onto active duty with no aggravation by his
military service.  The condition was found to be the result of the natural
progression of the disease and as such not an illness or injury for which
disability retirement was authorized.

10.  The applicant waived his right to a formal PEB and concurred with the
PEB findings.

11.  On 25 October 2003, the applicant was discharged for an EPTS physical
disability without service aggravation.  He had 2 years, 8 months, and 18
days of service.

12.  In the development of the case an advisory opinion was obtained from
the Deputy Commander, United States Army Physical Disability Agency.  The
opinion reflects the provisions of regulation that precludes disability
processing for conditions that are determined to be congenital, hereditary,
or developmental in nature.  The opinion notes that the applicant was
afforded proper processing through the MEB and PEB processing.  These
Boards determined that his condition had existed prior to entry onto active
duty and that there was no indication of any aggravation of the condition
beyond normal progression of the condition.  The opinion states the
applicant's disability processing was proper and the preponderance of
evidence did not support the applicant's request.

13.  A copy of the opinion was forwarded to the applicant.  He did not
respond or offer any rebuttal of the opinion.
14.  Department of Defense Instruction 1332.38 (Physical Disability
Evaluation) provides the pertinent definitions in the following paragraphs:

      a.  E2.1.25. physical disability as any impairment due to  disease  or
      injury, regardless of degree, that reduces or prevents an individual's
      actual or presumed ability to engage in gainful employment  or  normal
      activity. The term "physical disability" includes mental disease,  but
      not  such  inherent  defects  as  behavioral   disorders,   adjustment
      disorders, personality disorders, and primary mental  deficiencies.  A
      medical  impairment  or  physical  defect  standing  alone  does   not
      constitute a physical disability. To constitute a physical disability,
      the medical impairment or physical defect must be of such a nature and
      degree of severity as  to  interfere  with  the  member’s  ability  to
      adequately perform his or her duties.


      b.  E3.P4.5.2.2.2.  Any hereditary and/or  genetic  disease  shall  be
      presumed to have been  incurred  prior  to  entry  into  active  duty.
      However, any aggravation of that disease,  incurred  in  the  line  of
      duty, beyond that determined to be due to natural progression shall be
      deemed service aggravated; and


      c.  E3.P4.5.2.3,  The  presumption  that  a  disease  is  incurred  or
      aggravated in the line of duty  may  only  be  overcome  by  competent
      medical evidence establishing by a preponderance of evidence that  the
      disease was clearly neither incurred nor aggravated while  serving  on
      active duty or authorized training.  Such  medical  evidence  must  be
      based upon well-established medical principles, as distinguished  from
      personal medical opinion alone.  Preponderance of evidence is  defined
      as that degree of proof necessary to fully satisfy the  board  members
      that there is greater than a 50%  probability  that  the  disease  was
      neither incurred during nor aggravated by military service.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant is suffering from hereditary retinitis pigmentosa.  In
order to afford the requested relief the condition must be shown to have
suffered from aggravation beyond the normal progression of the disease.
The available medical documentation does not support such a finding.


2.  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
submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

3.  Therefore, no change to the applicant's records is warranted.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__LDS __  _AM____  __PMS __  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.




            ___Linda D. Simmons______
                    CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050018217                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060928                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |124                                     |
|2                       |136                                     |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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