IN THE CASE OF:	  

	BOARD DATE:	  11 June 2008

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080005012 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request for a medical discharge.

2.  The applicant states that he had several documented medical problems.  To this day he is suffering from high blood pressure, poor vision, high cholesterol, depression, and anxiety.

3.  The applicant provides a letter, dated 30 October 2007, from the Board denying his application; an Air Force Form 422 (Physical Profile Serial Report), dated 4 June 1985; Standard Forms (SF) 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care), dated 24 October 1979, 9 and 10 December 1985, 5 May 1986,              27 October 1986, 12 February 1987, 17 March 1987, and 4 October 1988; a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Form 10-2914(R) (Prescription and Authorization for Eyeglasses); DA Forms 2496 (Disposition Form), dated           17 March 1987 and 14 April 1987; and a DA Form 2496 dated 28 April 1988, with attachments of a DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile), dated 19 February 1988, an SF 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 17 March 1988, and Consultation Sheets.

4.  The applicant provides an SF 88, dated 26 October 1988, with a Consultation Sheet; a Consultation Sheet dated 2 November 1988 with three pages of electrocardiogram (ECG) results; ECG results dated 26 October 1988; Consultation Sheets, dated 25 March 1988 and 2 November 1988; two Department of Pathology reports (lab results); a Record of Emergency Care and Treatment, dated 4 October 1988; and an SF 93 (Report of Medical History), dated 26 October 1988.

5.  The applicant also provides two Enlisted Evaluation Reports (EERs), one for the period ending March 1985 and one for the period ending 5 March 1988; promotion orders, dated 24 July 1985 with his promotion points worksheet; two Certificates of Achievement, one dated 29 November 1984 and one dated         21 November 1986; a DA Form 2496, dated 20 November 1987, with a related draft EER; two DA Forms 4856 (General Counseling Form), one dated 25 August 1987 and one dated 18 December 1986; Army Good Conduct Medal orders, dated 23 August 1988; an unidentified test score sheet, dated 8 December 1986; an Individual Soldier’s Report, test date 4 December 1986; two VA letters, one dated 31 January 2008 and one dated 25 September 2006; an Army Achievement Medal award certificate, dated 2 November 1988; a VA letter, dated 20 April 1989; his Qualitative Management Program Bar to Reenlistment Appeal; and two sets of Progress Notes, one printed on 8 January 2008 and one printed on 8 August 2007.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20070006623 on 23 October 2007.

2.  Almost all of the evidence provided by the applicant is new evidence that will be considered by the Board.

3.  The applicant was born on 4 October 1943.  After having had prior service, he enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 October 1981.

4.  On 4 June 1985, the applicant was given a temporary physical profile due to chest pains.  He was given restrictions of no physical training pending a stress test.

5.  Effective 1 August 1985, the applicant was promoted to Staff Sergeant, E-6, in military occupational specialty (MOS) 16P (Chaparral Crewmember).

6.  A DA Form 2496, dated 14 April 1987, indicates the applicant was not cleared to enter the Army’s Physical Training and Testing Program as evaluation of data revealed one or more of the criteria for (cardiovascular) clearance to be elevated or abnormal.

7.  By letter dated 17 February 1988, the U. S. Army Enlisted and Evaluation Center informed him that, after a comprehensive review of his file, it was determined he should be barred from reenlistment.  He apparently received the notification in May 1988.  The Department of the Army bar to reenlistment was based on three EERs, covering the period April 1985 through June 1987.  The applicant indicated that he would submit an appeal.  

8.  On 11 April 1988, the applicant was given a permanent H2 profile for high frequency sensorineural hearing loss.  

9.  The applicant’s EER for the period January 1988 through May 1988 indicated he was an exceptional noncommissioned officer (NCO) who could be totally depended upon.  All missions assigned to him were completed in an outstanding manner.  

10.  The applicant’s bar to reenlistment appeal, signed by the Deputy Commander, III Corps and Fort Hood on 2 August 1988 recommending approval, included numerous letters of support.  A platoon sergeant stated the applicant daily demonstrated his initiative, Soldier skills, and military bearing, making him one of the finest NCOs in the unit.  Another platoon sergeant stated what when it came to performing his job as a Chaparral Squad Leader and caring for the needs of his Soldiers, the applicant(‘s performance) was of the highest standards.  An assistant section chief stated the applicant’s devotion to duty, exceptional technical expertise, and knowledge of the M48A1 Chaparral Weapon System made him one of the best squad leaders in the battalion.  Another platoon sergeant stated the applicant performed outstandingly, and he was capable of performing all duties to the highest of Army standards.  

11.  The applicant’s first sergeant stated the applicant was always up and combat-ready as a squad leader.  His platoon leader stated he accomplished all missions assigned to him in an outstanding manner and his technical skills were excellent in all areas, such as visual aircraft recognition, and maintenance.  His battery commander stated he was a hard-charging and totally dedicated NCO who knew and understood his job.  His battalion commander stated that his latest EER, Aircraft Recognition Test, and Army Physical Readiness Test score attested to his present level of performance and fitness, and it was clear that his retention in service was in the best interest of the unit and the Army.  

12.  The result (i.e., approval/disapproval) of the applicant’s appeal is not available, but it was apparently disapproved.

13.  On 26 October 1988, the applicant completed a separation physical examination.  An SF 88, dated 26 October 1988, noted that he had had problems with complaints of chest pain, but he was found qualified for separation.  An ECG, dated 26 October 1988, indicated he had an abnormal ECG (an incomplete right bundle branch block); however, a Consultation Sheet, dated 26 October 1988, indicated that he was advised to seek evaluation from the VA.  

14.  On 14 November 1988, the applicant was honorably discharged under the Fiscal Year 1988 Reduction in Authorized Strength-Early Transition Program  with a Department of the Army bar to reenlistment in effect.  He had completed 13 years, 1 month, and 2 days of creditable active service.  

15.  On 20 April 1989, the VA notified the applicant he was granted disability compensation for hypertension, impaired hearing, and sinusitis.  

16.  The applicant provided a VA Progress Note, printed on 8 August 2007, indicating he suffered from depression and psychosis.  

17.  Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation for physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability.  It states the mere presence of an impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability.  In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, or rank.  

18.  Army Regulation 635-40 states disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to Soldiers whose service is interrupted and they can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service.  The version in effect at the time stated that when a Soldier was being processed for separation or retirement for reasons other than physical disability, continued performance of assigned duty commensurate with his or her rank or grade until the Soldier is scheduled for separation or retirement, created a presumption that a Soldier is fit.  Application of the rule did not mandate a finding of fit.  The presumption was rebuttable and was overcome when the preponderance of evidence established the Soldier was physically unable to perform adequately the duties of his or her office, grade or rank.

19.  Title 38, U. S. Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the 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.  


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contended that he had several documented medical problems and is suffering from high blood pressure, poor vision, high cholesterol, depression, and anxiety to this day.

2.  It is acknowledged that the applicant had several medical conditions while he was on active duty.  However, there is no evidence to show that any of those conditions prevented him from performing his military duties.  Disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness.  It is provided to Soldiers whose service is interrupted and they can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service.

3.  The applicant’s Department of the Army bar to reenlistment appeal indicated that he was well able to perform his military duties.  He provided numerous statements of support with his appeal indicating he daily demonstrated his Soldier skills; that his exceptional technical expertise and knowledge of the M48A1 Chaparral Weapon System made him one of the best squad leaders in the battalion; that he performed outstandingly and was capable of performing all duties to the highest of Army standards; that he was always combat-ready as a squad leader; that his technical skills were excellent in all areas, to include visual aircraft recognition; and that he was a hard-charging and totally dedicated NCO who knew and understood his job.  

4.  The applicant’s battalion commander stated that the applicant’s latest EER, Aircraft Recognition Test, and Army Physical Readiness Test score attested to his present level of performance and fitness, and it was clear that the applicant’s retention in service was in the best interest of the unit and the Army.

5.  The applicant could not have it both ways – that he was so physically fit and so competent in performing his duties in a combat arms MOS that his retention in service was in the best interest of the Army if only his bar to reenlistment was lifted, or that he was so physically unfit that he should have been processed for a physical disability separation.

6.  The rating action by the VA does not necessarily demonstrate an error or injustice on the part of the Army.  The VA, operating under its own policies and regulation, assigns disability ratings as it sees fit.  The VA is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service in awarding a disability rating, only that a medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned.  Consequently, due to the two concepts involved (i. e., the more stringent standard by which a Soldier is determined not to be medically fit for duty versus the standard by which a civilian would be determined to be socially or industrially impaired), an individual’s medical condition may be considered insufficient to render him medically unfit for duty and yet be rated by the VA.

7.  The applicant has provided insufficient evidence to overcome the presumption that he was physically fit at the time of his separation and therefore there is insufficient evidence to warrant granting the relief requested.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__xx____  __xx____  ___xx___  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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20070006623 dated 23 October 2007.




 _    _____xxxx _____________
       CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.


ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080005012





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080005012



6


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1