RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        9 JANUARY 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060001950


      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             |
|     |Ms. Rene’ R. Parker               |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James Anderholm               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jerome Pionk                  |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Scott Faught                  |     |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 his discharge be changed to a
medical discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he was diagnosed with hypertrophic
cardiomyopathy (HCM) while on active duty.  However, the medical board
determined that his condition existed prior to entering the service and
consequently, he did not receive a disability rating.  The applicant states
that the medical board did not follow Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical
Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation).  In addition, he
maintains that during the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) hearing, the
board exposed its own fundamental lack of knowledge in the rules and
regulations governing the disability process.

3.  The applicant explains that he was a Reserve Soldier brought on active
duty in February 2005 to attend school; however, in March 2005 he was
mobilized.  He adds that during his six years in the Reserve, he had passed
every Army Physical Fitness Test and successfully participated in every run
with no indication of heart problems or any problems with his
cardiovascular system.  Prior to the summer of 2005, the applicant recalls,
he had always been in excellent condition. The applicant states that in
March 2005, while on active duty, he went on sick call for a cold and the
doctor noticed that he had a heart murmur which did not present a problem
at that time.  In June 2005, during deployment processing, he mentioned the
heart murmur and was directed to see a cardiologist.  The cardiologist
diagnosed him with HCM.

4.  The applicant claims that he was in sound physical and mental condition
upon his entry on active duty and his disease arose thereafter.  He
maintains that the PEB improperly determined that his disease was
congenital and existed before his active duty service.  The applicant
argues that the fact that his condition was not discovered upon his entry
into active duty leads to the conclusion that the condition did not exist
prior to his entry on active duty.  The applicant concludes that it was
clear that the physician member at the PEB had no grasp of the regulation
or the medical information concerning his disease and wrongly assumed that
everyone with HCM has a congenital defect.

5.  The applicant provides his self-authored statement, PEB Proceedings,
supporting statement, line of duty, and medical information on HCM.




CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant enlisted in
the United States Army Reserve on 23 January 1999, for 8 years.

2.  A Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status shows that on 8 June
2005, the applicant was seen at Camp Shelby, Mississippi, for HCM.  This
form indicated that the applicant’s disease was incurred in the line of
duty.  The basis for this opinion was listed as "Recognized while activated
in support of Operation Enduring Freedom."  On 21 September 2005, this form
was reviewed for completeness and the disease was determined to be in the
line of duty by the commander of the Army Reserve Personnel Center.

3.  On 5 October 2005, the applicant underwent a Medical Evaluation Board
(MEB).  His chief complaint was recorded as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
idiopathic in origin.  The MEB noted that the applicant failed the
retention standards per Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3, paragraph 3-21h.
 The condition was listed as occurring in the line of duty with a "No"
listed under "Existed Prior to Service."  The MEB annotated the form
indicating that the applicant’s continuance on active duty under provisions
of Army Regulation 635-40 was medically contraindicated.  The MEB referred
the applicant to a PEB.  On
19 October 2005, the applicant checked the block indicating that he
disagreed with the MEB findings and recommendations and submitted a
rebuttal.  The rebuttal was not contained in the applicant’s records.

4.  On 28 October 2005, after considering the applicant’s appeal to the
recommendations and findings of the MEB, the approving authority signed the
MEB proceedings and the proceedings were forwarded to the PEB.

5.  On 30 November 2005, the applicant and his counsel appeared before a
formal PEB to consider his (applicant’s) medical condition of HCM.  During
the formal proceedings, the PEB reevaluated all available medical records
and sworn testimony by the applicant.  Based on a review of the objective
medical evidence of record, the PEB found that the applicant’s medical and
physical impairment prevented reasonable performance of his duties as
required by his grade and military specialty.  The PEB stated that there
was compelling evidence to support a finding that the applicant’s condition
existed prior to service and was not permanently aggravated beyond natural
progression by such service.  Despite the entry contained on the Statement
of Medical Examination and Duty Status, the PEB stated that hypertrophic
cardiomyopathy was a congenital condition.  The PEB found that the
applicant was physically unfit and recommended separation from the service
without disability benefits.
6.  On 5 December 2005, the applicant checked the block indicating that he
disagreed with the PEB findings and recommendations.  Additionally, the
form indicated that he had attached a rebuttal, but the rebuttal was not
included in his application to this Board.

7.  The applicant provided several medical documents on cardiomyopathy from
the "Merck Manual of Medical Information."  The reference material
explained that cardiomyopathy refers to progressive impairment of the
structure and function of the muscular walls of the heart chambers.  The
manual also lists the different types of cardiomyopathy and the symptoms,
diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of each type.  Additionally, the
applicant highlightened a web site article that stated the origin of HCM is
unknown.

8.  The applicant also provided a supporting statement from a medical
doctor at Dwight David Eisenhower Army Medical Center, Fort Gordon,
Georgia.  The medical doctor stated that from the information provided in
several standard textbooks the etiology in 50 percent of HCM cases was
identified as spontaneous and of unknown etiology.  He said that based on
the findings in three textbooks and the uncertainty regarding etiology, he
does not believe that anyone could come to a conclusion regarding the
etiology of the HCM without further information regarding the patient’s
family history and genetic testing.

9.  In the processing of this case, the Board obtained an advisory opinion
from the Deputy Commander, United States Army Physical Disability Agency
(USAPDA), Walter Reed Army Medical Center.  The deputy commander stated
that a MEB determined that the applicant did not meet medical retention
standards for the condition of HCM.  The applicant disagreed with the
findings that the condition existed prior to service.  The MEB appellate
authority reviewed the board findings, changed the date of diagnosis to
June 2005, the date the heart condition began, and referred the case to the
PEB.

10.  On 3 November 2005, an informal PEB determined that the applicant was
unfit for further military service for condition of hypertrophic
cardiomyopathy.  The PEB found that there was compelling evidence that the
condition existed prior to service and was not permanently aggravated
beyond the natural progression of his condition and recommended separation
without disability.  The applicant disagreed with the findings and a formal
hearing was convened on 30 November 2005.  After hearing testimony from the
applicant, arguments from his representative, and reviewing all medical
evidence, the formal PEB upheld the earlier findings.  The applicant
disagreed with the findings and submitted an appeal.  The formal PEB
reviewed his appeal and after a thorough and complete review of his case,
the agency upheld the original decision of the PEB.
11.  The deputy commander explained the discrepancies in the diagnosis of
the original and subsequent MEB concerning the onset of the applicant’s
HCM.  He stated that the PEB found that the applicant complained of chest
pains while taking his pre-mobilization physical training test in January
2005.  On 30 March 2005, the applicant complained of additional heart
symptoms and his pre-existing condition was fully diagnosed by June 2005.
The deputy commander said the PEB found medical evidence that two of the
applicant’s family members also had the same disease which supports their
conclusion that the disease was genetically transmitted.

12.  The deputy commander stated that the PEB found, by preponderance of
the evidence, that there was sufficient evidence provided to establish that
the applicant’s condition had existed before entry on active duty and that
there was no evidence to establish that it had been caused, or permanently
aggravated, by any military activity.  He also said even if the applicant’s
opinion concerning an inability to accurately confirm the congenital
aspects of this disease was correct, the preponderance of the evidence
clearly supports that the disease process began before he was mobilized.
The deputy commander concluded that there was no material error or
injustice that would require any change to the applicant’s record.

13.  The advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for
acknowledgement and/or rebuttal on 2 March 2005.  However, no response was
received.

14.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement,
or Separation) 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.
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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Evidence of record shows that the applicant underwent an MEB and two
PEBs to include appeals during the period October 2005 through November
2005.  The applicant was given the opportunity to either appear before the
board or provide additional evidence that would aid the board in making
their final determination.  In addition to reviewing the applicant's
medical records, the PEB also received testimony from the applicant and
comments from his counsel.  There is no indication that the PEB did not
consider all medical evidence available prior to making their final
decision.

2.  The advisory opinion obtained from the Deputy Commander, USAPDA,
verified that the PEB found two family members who had the same disease as
the applicant which supported the board’s conclusion that the disease was
genetically transmitted.  The PEB found that there was sufficient evidence
provided to establish that the applicant’s condition had medically existed
before entry on active duty and that there was no evidence to establish
that it had been caused, or permanently aggravated, by any military
activity.

3.  Additionally, the USAPDA reviewed the applicant's entire file and
concluded that his case was properly adjudicated.  Therefore, in order to
justify correction of a military record the applicant must show, or it must
otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.
The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy that
requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JA___  ___JP  __  ___SF __  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.



                                  ____ James Anderholm_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060001950                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070109                                |
|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]