APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, reconsideration of his previous application to correct his records by upgrading his discharge, changing the reason for discharge or granting a medical discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he suffered from a mental disorder while on active duty and was not properly diagnosed.  That the continuous treatment from the VA is evidence of a disability or reason to upgrade his discharge.

 NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum of consideration (MOC) prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 19 October 1988 (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant’s contentions that his medical records prove he had a mental condition in the Army and the discharge was unjust constitutes new argument.

The applicant submits medical reports and evaluations from his civilian, military and VA doctors dating from March 1978 to 6 September 1995.  Furthermore, he submits three letters from friends that state his health was fine before he entered the Army and after he was discharged he was different.  Also that he is a stable young man, well mannered, and kind.

An advisory opinion obtained by the DARBA Medical advisor indicates the applicant’s military career was not interrupted by his medical status, therefore the applicant was not qualified for a medical separation.  That upon examination of the medical records submitted, no information could refute the psychiatric evaluation which cleared him for separation.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, advisory opinions it is concluded:

1.  The applicant was being processed for separation under conditions that could have led to discharge under other than honorable conditions and was not eligible for physical disability processing. 

2.  The applicant’s recent adjustments to civilian life and letters sent on his behalf are noted but these matters are not so exemplary nor exceptional as to demonstrate an injustice in the discharge.

3.  Prior to reaching the determination that it was not in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file, the Board looked at the entire file.  It was only after all other aspects had been considered and it had been concluded that there was no basis to recommend a correction of the records that the Board considered the statute of limitations.  Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it undoubtedly would have recommended relief in spite of the failure to submit the application within the 3 year time limit.  The Board has never denied an application simply because it was not submitted within the required time.

4.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

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

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director