APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, a medical retirement and a medical reexamination due to a incorrect medical diagnosis. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was suffering from a major depression and acute anxiety reaction (PTSD) at the time of discharge rather than schizophrenic reaction.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He was born on 23 May 1941.  He entered active duty in June 1958.  His service was continuous through reenlistments and extensions.  The applicant served in Vietnam from 5 August 1968 to 19 February 1971.  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-6.

In April 1972, the applicant was hospitalized for anxiety reaction, however particular are missing from his files.  On 20 July 1972, he was again hospitalized for approximately three day for anxiety, homicidal impulse and suicidal ideation.  The applicant was referred to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEBD).

On 6 September 1972, the applicant appeared before a MEBD.  The MEBD diagnosed the applicant as having Schizophrenia, latent type, moderate.  He was found mentally competent for pay purposes and competent to participated in board proceedings.  The applicant was not considered to be dangerous to himself or others.  He was referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).   

On 19 September 1972, the PEB diagnosed the applicant as schizophrenic reaction, latent type, slight.  The PEB found the applicant unfit for further military service and recommended that he be separated from military service with severance pay.

On 2 November 1972, the applicant was released from active duty in pay grade E-6, by reason of physical disability with severance pay in the amount of $14,104.80.  He served 
14 years, 4 months and 6 days of honorable active service and was awarded the Vietnam Service Medal and the Vietnam Campaign Medal.

On 17 September 1987, the Veterans Administration awarded the applicant a 10 percent service connected disability rating.

The applicant’s VA records also indicates that in July 1990, his service connected disability was increased to 
100 percent.  However, the particulars are missing from his file.   

On 4 June 1995, the applicant filed an appeal to this Board for correction of his military records.

Title 10, United States Code, chapter 61, provides disability retirement or separation for a member who is physically unfit to perform the duties of his office, rank, grade or rating because of disability incurred while entitled to basic pay.

The rating action by the VA does not necessarily demonstrate any error or injustice in the Army rating.  The VA, operating under its own policies and regulations, assigns disability ratings as it sees fit.  Any rating action by the VA does not compel the Army to modify its rating.

The Commander, USA Physical Disability Agency, in a comment (COPY ATTACHED) to this Board, found no evidence  of error or injustice and recommended that the records not be changed as related to disability compensation or separation.

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

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant's contentions do not demonstrate error or injustice in the disability rating assigned by the Army, nor error or injustice in the disposition of his case by his separation from the service.

4.  The VA, operating under its own policies and regulations, assigns disability ratings as it sees fit.  Any rating action by the VA does not compel the Army to modify its rating.

5.  The foregoing is supported by the opinion from the Physical Disability Agency.

6.  Therefore, 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


						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director