RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        21 August 207
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070001004


      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.

|     |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano          |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Loretta D. Gulley             |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Conrad V. Meyer               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Dale E. DeBruler              |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Ernestine I Fields            |     |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 he be medically retired instead
of medically discharged.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the evidence of his record with
the military will show that he was incapable of performing in his primary
military occupational specialty (MOS) and incapable of being retained in
any other MOS based on his heart condition with residuals.  The applicant
finally states, in effect, that he believes the military should have given
him a disability rating of 30%.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents in support of this
application:

      a.  DD Form 214, with a separation date of 13 June 1971;

      b.  Pages 1-3 of Optional Form 275 (Medical Summary Board);

      c.  DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile);

      d.  Department of Veteran Affairs Rating Decision dated 23 October
2006; and

      e.  Department of Veteran Affairs Rating Decision dated 24 August
2006.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 6 June 2006, the date of his discharge.  The application
was received on 3 January 2007.

2.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army
on
8 March 2001.  He was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) 91Q
(Pharmacy Specialist).  The highest rank he attained while serving on
active duty was Specialist (E-4).

3.  The Medical Board Summary (Optional Form (OF) 275) dated 8 February
2006, shows that the applicant was referred to the U.S. Army MEDDAC-
Heidelberg, APO 96309 following complaints of chest pain and sleep apnea.
The applicant submitted 3 pages of the 4 page results of the Medical Board
Summary which shows that he was in good health until 2003 when during an
Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) he noted the onset of chest pain.  He was
issued Albuteral
and a 2-week profile.  The applicant continued to have chest pains during
activity
and occasionally at night associated with shortness of breath.  The
applicant was hospitalized in June 2005 at a host-nation German hospital.
He was noted to have an abnormal electrocardiogram (EKG) consistent with
LVH (left ventricular hypertrophy) and strain pattern.  The applicant was
referred to the Cardiology Service at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center
where he underwent a series of tests to include an echocardiogram which
demonstrated moderate concentric LVH, a stress echocardiogram which could
not be interpreted for ischemia because of the baseline STT wave
abnormalities related to his LVH, a cardiac catheterization which was
normal for coronary artery disease, and a grade exercise tolerance test in
which the applicant developed chest pains.  The OF 275 shows that these
tests diagnosed him with congestive heart failure from diastolic
dysfunction.  The applicant was treated with several medications for his
blood pressure including Nifedipine, Aspirin, Hydrochlorothiazide, and
Atenolol.  The applicant’s OF 275 shows that the applicant first became
award of sleeping difficulties in 2003 when his wife awaken him because he
was snoring and would stop breathing.  In October 2005 he underwent a
polysomnogram which was abnormal.  He was prescribed a C-Pap machine but
had not used it.

4.  Page 4 of the summary states that the applicant failed to meet
retention standards under Army Regulation 40 -501 and it was recommended
that he be referred to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for further
adjudication.

5.  On 21 March 2006, the applicant was given a DA Form 3349 (Physical
Profile) permanent profile for chest pain, diastolic dysfunction, and
obstructive sleep apnea.  Item 10 (Other: e.g. Functional limitations and
capabilities and other comments) show that his assignment limitations were
“no ruck (sack), march, or forced PT (Physical Training).  No sustained
strenuous exercise.  No aerobic event for APFT (Army Physical Fitness
Test).  All physical activity at own pace and distance.  No standing longer
than 15 minutes without resting.  Must have access to electricity to run a
C-PAP (continuous positive airway pressure) machine [which is a machine
that blows air into your nose via a nose mask, keeping the airway open and
unobstructed] during hours of sleep.”  Item 10 also shows that an MED
(Medical Evaluation Board) was initiated.

6.  On 26 March 2006, the MEB diagnosed the applicant with congestive heart
failure from diastolic dysfunctional manifested by chest pains during
exercise and moderately reduced exercise tolerance and found it to be
medically unacceptable in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501, Chapter
3, paragraph 3-21e.  The MEB also diagnosed the applicant with obstructive
sleep apnea requiring a
C-PAP machine and found it to be medically unacceptable in accordance with
Army Regulation 40-501, Chapter 3, paragraph 3-41c.  The MEB referred the
applicant to a PEB.

7.  On 18 June 2006, the PEB found the applicant was physically unfit due
to congestive heart failure from diastolic dysfunction manifested by chest
pain during exercise and moderately reduced exercise.  The PEB also stated
the applicant required medication and that he has been prescribed Atenolol
and Nifedipine.  The applicant was rated under the Department of Veterans
Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) codes 7099 and 7020 and
granted a 10% disability rating recommending him for separation with
severance pay.  The PEB also found MEB Dx 2 (sleep apnea), not unfitting
and not rated.

8.  On 6 June 2006, the applicant was honorably discharged from active duty
in accordance with the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, Chapter 4- 24
B (3), for separation by reason of disability with severance pay.  He was
credited with 5 years, 2 months, and 29 days of active duty service.

9.  The applicant submitted a copy of his VA Rating Decision, dated 24
August 2006 that shows he received a 10 percent service-connected
disability rating for bilateral periodic tinnitus and a 10 percent service-
connected disability rating for hypertension.  Service-connected disability
for a claimed hearing loss was denied.

10.  The applicant submitted a copy of his VA Rating Decision; dated 23
October 2006 that shows he received a 50 percent service-connected
disability rating for sleep apnea with a C-PAP machine and a 30 percent-
service connected disability rating for his heart condition with residual
pain.

11.  Chapter 3 (Retention Medical Fitness Standards) of Army Regulation
40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), as amended, provides the standards
for medical fitness for retention and separation, including retirement.
Soldiers with medical conditions listed in this chapter should be referred
for disability processing.

12.  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.
If the MEB determines the Soldier does not meet retention standards, the
board will recommend referral of the Soldier to a PEB.

13.  Title 10, United States Code, section 1203, provides for the physical
disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years service and a
disability rated at less than 30 percent.

14.  The award of VA compensation does not mandate disability retirement or
separation from the Army.  The VA, operating under its own policies and
regulations, may make a determination that a medical condition warrants
compensation.  The VA is not required to determine fitness for duty at the
time of separation.  The Army must find a member physically unfit before he
or she can be medically retired or separated.

15.  Title 38, United States Code, permits the DVA to award compensation
for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military
service.  The DVA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime,
adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency’s
examinations and findings.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that he should be medically retired instead of
medically discharged.

2.  The medical evidence of record supports the determination that the
applicant's unfitting condition was properly diagnosed and that his
disability was properly rated in accordance with the VASRD.  His separation
with severance pay was in compliance with law and regulation.

3.  The applicant has not provided sufficient documentation to support his
contention that the evaluation and the rating rendered by the PEB was
incorrect. Therefore, he is not entitled to change in his disability
rating.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must,
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

_______  _________  ________   PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___CVM   ____DED _  ___ERM_  DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that 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.




                                  ____Conrad V. Meyer____
                                            CHAIRPERSON





                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070001004                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/08/21                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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