RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:      12 October 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060003218


      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. Stephanie Thompkins           |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John Infante                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Gerald J. Purcell             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Karmin S. Jenkins             |     |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, a trial of duty determination.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that there was no reason he was found
unfit for duty.  He was discharged without a trial of duty.  In accordance
with Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 3-25(a)(b), a trial of duty is based
upon physician recommendation and evaluation.  He was cleared for any and
all duties.  His DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile) shows no physical or duty
limitations.

3.  The applicant provides copies of his Non-Commissioned Officer
Evaluation Reports for the periods ending July 2002 and July 2003; his
Medical Board Summary; a clearance from his cardiologist; his DA Form 3349;
his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty); a
letter from his medical doctor; and a letter from the Chief, Enlisted
Accessions Division, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, in support
of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army,
in pay grade E-3, on 25 September 1996, with prior enlisted service in the
Navy Reserve.

2.  The applicant submits a copy of a note prepared by a physician on staff
at Pikes Peak Cardiology, Colorado Springs, Colorado, dated 14 October
2003, stating the applicant was cleared for any and all activity.

3.  The applicant was issued a permanent profile of 311111, on 16 December
2003, due to symptomatic complete heart block, permanent pacer placement.
His assignment limitations were required cardiology follow-up,
intermittently, semiannually, and no exposure to magnetic fields.  The
profile determined the applicant to be in excellent physical status and no
physical activity limitations were imposed.

4.  The applicant submits a copy of a Medical Board Summary, prepared
while he was stationed at Fort Carson, Colorado, that states he was
present at the clinic for recommendation for a Medical Evaluation Board
(MEB) or Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) given he had a permanent
pacemaker implanted.  Problems were first noted in January 2000 and when
he experienced syncope during an Army Physical Fitness Test.  Evaluation
was negative at Memorial Hospital in Colorado.  The applicant has since
had several episodes of chest pain.  He was deployed to Bright Star
in 2001, had chest pain post physical training and was noted to have had
palpitations and complete heart block to heart rate of 20 beats per
minute (bpm). A permanent pacemaker was implanted by an Egyptian army
cardiologist.  The evaluation at Walter Reed Army Medical Center with
electrophysiology study was normal.  The patient had wenkebach, and was
felt to be normal rhythm in a healthy male.  Therefore, permanent
pacemaker was removed in November 2001.  Patient has done well
until deployed to Iraq.  Patient had generalized fatigue, poor exercise
tolerance, dizziness, blurred vision, and swelling in his hands and
face.  The patient was noted on holter monitoring to have complete heart
block with a heart rate of 20-28 bpm, with symptoms.

5.  The Medical Board Summary also stated that the applicant returned to
Fort Carson and had an evaluation by a civilian cardiologist.  He had a
stress test with good exercise tolerance and chronotropic competence;
however, precipitous drop of heart rate and vomiting ensued.  On 4
September 2003 a permanent pacemaker was implanted by Pikes Peak
Cardiology.  He is currently doing well with no complaints, excellent
exercise tolerance, and no physical limitations except mild pain at
pacemaker site with heavy lifting.

6.  The medical board summary reported the applicant had excellent
prognosis and would require serial cardiology follow-up, and might need
generator or lead revisions.  The limitations and restrictions were the
following:  a. the patient would require semiannual to annual pacemaker
monitoring and access to tertiary care to include a cardiologist in case of
pacer malfunction and assessment; and b. the applicant was to avoid
electromagnetic field exposure that may interfere with pacemaker function.
The board's recommendations stated that the applicant failed to meet
retention criteria addressed in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501,
paragraph 3-24b, due to permanent pacemaker implantation.  He was referred
to a PEB for further adjudication.

6.  On 10 February 2004, the applicant, with counsel, appeared before a
PEB.  The PEB considered the applicant's condition of recurrent syncope due
to arrhythmia/AV block/bradycardia requiring a pacemaker implantation.  The
PEB noted that this condition posed a risk for pacemaker malfunction and
sudden death especially under field conditions.  Otherwise the Soldier was
asymptomatic with one episode of pacemaker malfunction.  The PEB
reevaluated all available medical board proceedings, medical records and
commander's statement.  His other conditions listed as medical board
diagnoses were considered by the PEB and found to be not unfitting and
therefore not ratable.  The PEB found the applicant's functional limitation
in maintaining the appropriate level of adaptability,
caused by the physical impairments, made him medically unfit to perform the
duties required of a Soldier of his rank and primary specialty.  The PEB
recommended a disability percentage rating of 10 percent and that he be
separated with severance pay, if otherwise qualified.

7.  On 18 February 2004, the applicant concurred with the recommendations
made by the PEB and waived a formal hearing of his case.

8.  The applicant was honorably discharged on 5 April 2004, in pay grade E-
5, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 4-24b(3),
disability with severance pay.  He was credited with 7 years, 6 months, and
11 days total active service.  Item 18 (Remarks), of his DD Form 214,
states that he was paid severance pay in the amount of $52,093.80.

9.  On 2 August 2005, in a letter addressed to the "US Army Recruiting,"
the applicant's medical doctor stated that the applicant was evaluated for
his cardiac status and was essentially normal.  The applicant has a
pacemaker that was checked and was completely normal.  At the Army
request's, the applicant had a pacemaker implanted in Egypt when he was
stationed there and then removed at WRAMC.  The pacemaker was reimplanted
at Fort Carson.  Evidently, it is not quite clear, according to the Army,
whether he needs the pacemaker and should be given another chance.

10.  On 9 November 2005, the Chief, Enlisted Accessions Division, Office of
the Deputy Chief of Staff, G1, in response to the applicant's desire to
reenter the Army, advised the applicant that his request was credible and
had merit.  The documents submitted by the applicant were considered but
they were unable to determine his eligibility for reentry.  The applicant
was advised to address his issue to the Army Board for Correction of
Military Records (ABCMR).  If the applicant felt he was entitled to a
"trial of duty" after his pacemaker was implanted or that there were other
reasons that should be redressed, he could apply to the ABCMR for a
determination on reinstatement.

11.  Army Regulation 40-501 provides policy on medical fitness standards
for induction, enlistment, appointment, retention, and related policies and
procedures.  Chapter 3 lists the various medical conditions and physical
defects that may render a Soldier unfit for further military service.
Paragraph 3-4 pertains to general policy.  It states that possession of one
or more of the conditions listed in this chapter does not mean automatic
retirement or separation from the service.  It also states that physicians
are responsible for referring Soldiers with
conditions listed in this chapter to an MEB.  It is crucial that MEBs are
complete and reflect all of the Soldier's medical problems and all physical
limitations the Soldier has.  Determination of fitness or unfitness will be
made by a PEB.  The PEB, under the PDA (Physical Disability Agency), will
consider the results of the MEB, as well as the requirements of the
Soldier's MOS in determining fitness.

12.  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.

13.  Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 4-24 pertains to disposition
Soldiers by the Army Human Resources Command (AHRC) upon the final decision
of the Physical Disability Agency.  It states that AHRC will dispose of the
case by publishing orders or issuing proper instructions to subordinate
headquarters, or return any disability evaluation case to the United States
Army Physical Disability Agency (USADPA) for clarification or
reconsiderations when newly discovered evidence becomes available and is
not reflected in the findings and recommendations.  Subparagraph 4-24b(3)
applies to separation for physical disability with severance pay.

14.  Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 3-24, provides for surgery and other
invasive procedures involving the heart, pericardium, or vascular system.
These procedures include newly developed techniques or prostheses not
otherwise covered in this paragraph.  The causes for referral to an MEB are
as follows:  a. Permanent prosthetic valve implantation, b. Implantation of
permanent pacemakers, antitachycardia and defibrillator devices, and
similar newly developed devices.(3),

15.  Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 3-25, provides for a trial of duty
and profiling for cardiovascular conditions.  A trial of duty will be based
upon physical recommendation when the individual is asymptomatic without
objective evidence of myocardial ischemia, and when other functional
assessment (such as coronary angiography, exercise testing, and newly
developed techniques) indicates it is medically advisable.  Prior to
commencing the trial of duty period, a MEB will be accomplished in all
cases (including evaluation by a cardiologist or
internist) and a physical activity prescription on DA form 3349 will be
provided by a physician.  Upon completion of the trial of duty period, the
results will be incorporated into the MEB.  The results of the trial of
duty will include the individual's interim history, present condition,
prognosis, and the final recommendations.  A detailed report from the
commander or supervisor clearly describing the individual's ability to
accomplish assigned duties and to perform physical activity will be
incorporated into the MEB record.  The results of the MEB and an updated DA
Form 3349 will then be forwarded to a PEB in all cases except if a Soldier
successfully completes the trial of duty, is considered a New York Heart
Association Functional class I, and there are no physical or assignments
restrictions, the Soldier may be returned to duty without referral to a
PEB.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant has not submitted any evidence to show that he was
unjustly denied a trial of duty determination in his case.

2.  The evidence shows the applicant was referred to a medical evaluation
board for evaluation of his heart condition due to the implantation of a
pacemaker.

3.  The evidence shows the medical evaluation board determined the
applicant failed to meet retention standards of Army Regulation 40-501 due
to permanent pacemaker implantation.  He was referred to a physical
evaluation board for further evaluation.

4.  The applicant appeared before a physical evaluation board and it was
determined that his condition posed a risk for pacemaker malfunction and
sudden death, especially under field conditions.  The physical evaluation
board noted that the applicant was, on the date of his appearance before
the board, asymptomatic with one episode of pacemaker malfunction.

5.  The physical evaluation board determined the applicant's functional
limitations in maintaining the appropriate level of adaptability made him
medically unfit to perform the duties of his rank and primary specialty and
recommended he be separated with severance pay.

6.  There is no evidence of error or injustice in the applicant's physical
evaluation process for his cardiovascular condition due to pacemaker
implantation.  The applicant has failed to show, with the evidence
submitted with his application and
with the evidence of record, that had he received a trial of duty he would
be have been found medically fit and returned to duty.

7.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_JI _____  _KSJ____  _GJP ___  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.




                                  ______John Infante________
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060003218                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061012                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |DISABILITY w/Severance Pay              |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |April 5, 2004                           |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-40, Para 4-24b(3)                 |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |108.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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