APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Reconsideration of the type of relief granted to him by the Secretary of the Army on his application for correction of his military records, wherein his general discharge for unsuitability, personality disorder, was corrected to a discharge due to physical disability, rated 10 percent disabled, with severance pay.

APPLICANT STATES:  He should have been granted a higher disability rating by the Secretary.

NEW EVIDENCE AND/OR INFORMATION:  In support of his request the applicant submits a decision by the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA) to remand his case to the office which denied him a total disability rating on individual unemployability for reconsideration.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant’s military records were incorporated in the two Memoranda of Consideration prepared during the original two reviews of his case.

The applicant’s original request was denied on 5 September 1979.

In supplemental proceedings by the Board dated 5 November 1980 the Board recommended that the applicant’s records be corrected to show that he was physically unfit and was discharged due to physical disability, rated 10 percent disabled, with severance pay.  That recommendation was based primarily on an advisory opinion which had been obtained from the Physical Disability Agency (PDA).  

The PDA had stated that the applicant had a severe character and behavior disorder while he was on active duty which probably should have been classified as a borderline personality, that he did not suffer from schizophrenia, despite what the VA had stated.  The PDA continued that although he periodically had become psychotic and those episodes resembled schizophrenia, he did not lose contact with reality or have hallucinations or delusions, symptoms which accompany schizophrenia.  The PDA had recommended that the applicant’s records be corrected to show that he was physically unfit, rated 10 percent disabled, as a compromise in a case where there is no clear evidence that a disability separation was warranted.

Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3, provides that personality disorders and substance use disorders may render an individual administratively unfit rather than unfit because of physical disability.  Interference with effective performance of duty in association with these conditions will be dealt with through appropriate administrative channels, not medical.

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

1.  While the decision of the BVA shows that the severity of the applicant’s disability has increased over the years since his separation, it does not establish that the applicant suffered from schizophrenia while he was on active duty or that the severity of his disability while he was in the service should have warranted more than a 10 percent disability rating if it had been ratable at that time.

2.  While the applicant’s disability has been accepted as schizophrenia by the VA, and the VA has rated the applicant for that condition, those rulings do not in any way show that the applicant suffered from that condition while he was in the Army or, therefore, obligate the Army to change its rating of the applicant.  The VA operates under its own rules, regulations and laws which require, by law, that the veteran be given the benefit of doubt.  It appears that the VA has given the applicant that benefit of doubt.

3.  The Board previously granted the applicant a discharge for physical unfitness, rated 10 percent disabled, more as a compassionate gesture than as a corrective action.  The PDA had confirmed that the applicant did not have a ratable medical condition while he was on active duty.  He had a personality disorder.  To now increase the applicant’s disability rating is not supported by the evidence of record and would not be appropriate.

4.  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 in the relief previously granted to him by the Board.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT          

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director