BOARD DATE:	  11 February 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130009761 


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 his 1962 honorable discharge from the Pennsylvania Army National Guard (PAARNG) be changed to a medical discharge.

2.  The applicant states a review of the attached supporting documents will prove that he contracted rheumatic fever with concentric left ventricular hypertrophy during his active duty service.  This condition has long term and severe effects that should have required him to be medically discharged from the PAARNG. The Board should consider his application because he was not properly tested or compensated for a medical condition that was contracted during his service to his country.

3.  The applicant provides:

* A completed DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharged from the Armed Forces of the United States)
* 1959 Standard Form (SF) 89 (Report of Medical History)
* 1960 SF 88 (Report of Medical Examination), front page
* 1960 DD Form 689 (Individual Sick Slip)
* 1960 Line of Duty (LOD) Investigation memorandum
* 1960 DA Form 8-118 (Medical Board Proceedings)
* 1962 and 1967 Honorable Discharge Certificates
* 2011 Radiology Reports and Progress Notes (7)
* 2011 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision
* A letter from the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) and his reply
* His letter to Office of The Adjutant General (TAG) and their reply
* Title 10, U.S. Code, sections pertaining to physical disability

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  An SF 89, dated 15 October 1959, shows he stated that he was in good health.  The applicant enlisted in the PAARNG on 19 October 1959 for 3 years

3.  He was ordered to active duty for training (ADT) and entered ADT on
14 November 1959.  He completed training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 131.00 (armor crewman).  He was released from ADT on 8 May 1960 and reverted to the PAARNG.  He served in MOS 642.10 (personal carriage driver).

4.  He provided a copy of a DD Form 689, dated 23 July 1960, which shows he sustained a bad sprain to his knee that was determined to be in the LOD.

5.  His record contains:

   a.  A Letter of Circumstances memorandum, dated 26 July 1960, wherein the applicant's company commander stated the applicant had been diagnosed with a bad sprain on his knee and was taken to their area medic by way of jeep due to the very bad swelling which had developed overnight into something which demanded immediate care.  The applicant reported for sick call.

   b.  A DA Form 2173 (Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status), dated 15 August 1960, which shows he was admitted to the U.S. Army Hospital on 24 July 1960 for rheumatic fever, active, with heart involvement.  The form also stated that it was the first episode of apparent active rheumatic fever; initially there was no evidence of carditis, but prior to a transfer on 27 July 1960, a systolic murmur at the apex was heard.  It was recommended the applicant be returned to duty and continue to take daily 500,000 units of penicillin for a minimum of 5 years.
   c.  A DD Form 261 (Report of Investigation), dated 16 August 1960, which shows he had been diagnosed with rheumatic fever, active, with heart involvement which occurred in the LOD, not due to misconduct.

6.  He also provided copies of the following:

   a.  A DA Form 81-118, dated 24 October 1960, which shows a medical board convened and considered his diagnosis of rheumatic fever, active, improved.  The board recommended that he be returned to duty and assigned duties within the limits of his physical profile.  

   b.  An SF 88, dated 24 October 1960, which shows he underwent a medical examination for the purpose of his return to duty.  The form noted the following:   rheumatic fever, active with possible heart involvement, involving the joints of the lower extremities which were at that time quiescent.  Improved.  LOD:  Yes.  

7.  On 28 October 1960, the findings and recommendation of the medical board were approved.

8.  He was released from the PAARNG on 18 October 1962, at the expiration of his term of service (ETS), and was transferred to U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Reinforcement).  He was issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

9.  He again enlisted in the PAARNG on 18 April 1963 for 1 year.  He served in MOS 111.00 (light weapons infantryman).

10.  He was honorably released from the PAARNG on 17 April 1964, at his ETS, and was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement).  His National Guard Bureau Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) shows he was credited with completion of 1 years of length of service and 4 years, 5 months, and 29 days of total service for pay purpose.  

11.  He was honorably discharged from the USAR on 30 September 1967 and was issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

12.  He further provided copies of the following:

   a.  A Radiology Report which shows he underwent a calcium scoring study on 19 April 2011.
   
   
   b.  A VA Rating Decision, dated 21 December 2011, which stated an entitlement to an earlier effective date of service connection for residuals of rheumatic fever to include mitral valve prolapse “was not shown it was due to a clear and unmistakable error.”  The 30 percent evaluation was continued from 18 April 2007. 

   c.  A letter, dated 5 November 2012, advising him he needed to appeal his discharge to the state TAG before he applied to the ABCMR.

   d.  Three Progress Notes which noted that he had been admitted to the hospital in 1967 with chest pain and shortness of breath.  He was hospitalized on 28 December 2012 and diagnosed with valvular heart disease for a mitral valve prolapse and he was discharged on 31 December 2012 and instructed to be followed by outpatient services for heart valve diseases.

   e.  A letter, dated 2 April 2013, wherein the Pennsylvania TAG advised him of the following:
   
        (1)  A thorough review of his case had been conducted and the documentation he submitted was considered as part of that evaluation.  The documentation and facts revealed that he was medically cleared and returned to a normal duty status following his illness.  He was honorably discharged from the military approximately 46 years ago, and he did not undergo an MEB which was required before a determination of medical discharge or disability could be made; and 

        (2)  In light of the foregoing facts, his appeal for reconsideration of the determination of his military discharge must be denied.  However, if he still believed that an error or injustice existed in his discharge, he could submit an appeal to the ABCMR for further consideration.  He was thanked for his honorable service to the National and the PAARNG.

   f.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1218, which states a member of an armed force may not be discharged or released from active duty because of physical disability until he has made a claim for compensation to be filed with the VA or has refused to make such a claim.  

13.  Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability.  It 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 physical disability incurred or aggravated in service.  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, rank, or rating.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows he was diagnosed with rheumatic fever in 1960 while serving as a member of the PAARNG.  An MEB considered his diagnosis and recommended his return to duty with duties within the limits of his physical profile.  He was released from the PAARNG on 18 October 1962, at his ETS, and was transferred to the USAR Control Group.

2.  He reenlisted in the PAARNG on 18 April 1963.  He was presumably medically fit for enlistment at that time.  He was released in 1964, and he was transferred to the USAR.  He was honorably discharged from the USAR on       30 September 1967.  

3.  The evidence clearly shows he was returned to a normal duty status following his illness in 1960.  There is no evidence and he did not provide sufficient evidence showing he did not meet medical retention standards at the time of his 1962 and 1964 separations or that this condition was unfitting.  

4.  In considering his continued service in the PAARNG and the passage of almost 50 years it appears he continued to meet medical retention standards through 1964.  The evidence does not sufficiently show his medical condition prevented his satisfactory completion of his terms of service and/or entitlement to an Army disability rating.  

5.  The Board does not grant requests for changes to discharges or a medical discharge based solely on an individual’s award of a VA service-connected rating.  Operating under its own policies and regulations, the VA awards ratings because a medical condition is related to service (i.e., service connected).  In this case, he was evaluated and is being compensated for his service-connected medical conditions by the VA.  As a result, there is an insufficient basis for granting his request for a medical discharge from the PAARNG.


BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___X__  ___X_____  ___X_____  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.



      _______ _   X_______   ___
               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)                                         AR20130009761



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130009761



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1