Author: WoodsHN

ABCMR Memorandum of                                                               AC97-07872
Consideration (cont)

MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:         16 December 1998
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC97-07872

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  The following members, a quorum, were present:

| Mr. | Ernest M. Willcher | | Chairperson
| Mr. | Lana E. McGlynn | | Member
| Ms. | Carol Jo Suiter | | Member

	Also present, without vote, were:

| Mr. | Loren G. Harrell | | Director
| Mr. | Ed Clark | | Analyst

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that her military records be corrected to show that her impairment did not exist prior to service (EPTS); and that she was separated by reason of physical disability with an appropriate disability rating.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That she is permanently and totally disabled as has been determined by the Social Security Administration.

COUNSEL CONTENDS: Counsel concurs in the applicant's presentation and requests that all reasonable doubt be resolved in the applicant's favor.

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

She entered active duty on 20 October 1981.  She served as a chapel activities specialist and attained pay grade E-4.

On 22 November 1982 she underwent a medical board (MEB) at Dwight David Eisenhower Army Medical Center.  The MEB Narrative Summary shows that she was transferred from Landstuhl Army Medical Center, Germany, with the diagnosis of schizophreniform disorder; and that she had a history of depression and being suspicious of others while she was in her first semester while attending a seminary in 1980/1981 and subsequently underwent therapy by a psychologist.  She was referred to a physical evaluation board (PEB) with the diagnosis of major depression, recurrent, with psychotic features.

On 17 December 1982 an informal PEB found her physically unfit by reason of psychotic depression, EPTS, not aggravated by service.  Separation without entitlement to disability benefits was recommended.  The applicant nonconcurred and requested a formal hearing of her case.

On 7 January 1983 she underwent a formal PEB.  The 12-page formal PEB transcript shows that the applicant acknowledged that she had been treated for depression prior to entering active duty; and that she encountered difficulty with her roommates in Germany because males were allowed barracks visitation privileges and abused that privilege which resulted in her being “ridiculed, scored, called names, and even threatened” and, subsequently, that she was “hearing voices.”  Counsel, a military lawyer, summarized stating, in essence, that her initial depression problem had resolved itself prior to her entering service, and that her psychotic problems began in Germany or, if the problem existed before, it was aggravated by the environment in Germany.  The formal PEB concurred with the findings and recommendations of the informal PEB.

On 14 February 1983 she was honorably discharged by reason of physical disability without entitlement to disability benefits.
A 15 October 1994 letter signed by a physician and addressed to a VA Claims Counselor, shows that the applicant was hospitalized at a VA medical center for 5 months in 1983; that she was currently (1994) diagnosed as suffering from chronic paranoid schizophrenia; and that she was being treated with medication for that illness.

On 19 September 1996 she was advised by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) that based on the nature of her request, a medical discharge, it would be necessary for her to apply to this Board.

Her application to this Board, dated 18 September 1996, was received on 
29 October 1996.

On 6 August 1998 the Board was advised (COPY ATTACHED) by the Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA) that following an additional review of her case by psychiatric experts on the USAPDA staff, it is clear that her mental problems in 1980/1981 were the precursor to the similar problems that she experienced soon after coming on active duty; that even though the decision of what to call her mental disease took some time to solidify, the fact remains that she had the beginning of the disease before she entered the service; and that the end result in 1982/1983 was simply the natural progression, without any permanent service aggravation, of her pre-existing mental problems.  Denial of the application was recommended.

On 1 September 1998, after being provided a copy of the foregoing advisory opinion, counsel requested a formal hearing of the case.

The American Medical Association Encyclopedia of Medicine describes schizophrenia as a general term for a group of psychotic illnesses characterized by disturbances in thinking, emotional reaction, and behavior.  Schizophrenia may begin insidiously, with the individual becoming slowly more withdrawn and introverted and losing his or her drive and motivation.  The change may not be noticed for months or years, until it becomes apparent that the individual is suffering from delusions or hallucinations.  In other cases, the illness comes on more suddenly usually in response to some external stress. (Schizophreniform disorder refers to a single occurrence within a period of 
6 months).

Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 2-4, provides that the USAPDA is responsible for reviewing PEB proceedings to ensure that soldiers are given uniform and fair consideration under applicable laws, policies, and directives; for making the final decision whether a soldier is unfit because of physical disability; and for determining percentage ratings and disposition.

Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 3-3, provides that according to accepted medical principles, certain abnormalities and residual conditions exist that, when discovered, lead to the conclusion that they must have existed or have started before the individual entered the military service.

Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph B-10, provides that hereditary, congenital and other EPTS conditions frequently become unfitting through natural progression and should not be assigned a disability rating unless service aggravated complications are clearly documented or unless a soldier has been permitted to continue on active duty after such a condition, known to be progressive, was diagnosed or should have been diagnosed.

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.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant had a history of treatment for depression prior to entering active duty.

2.  Notwithstanding a variance in the specific diagnosis, an informal and a formal PEB found her physically unfit for further military service because of mental illness which was determined to be EPTS and which was not further aggravated by military service.  

3.  The applicant was properly separated from active duty without entitlement to disability benefits.

4.  The foregoing is supported by the advisory opinion provided by the USAPDA. 

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

EMW____  LEM____  CJS ____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID | AC98-07872
SUFFIX |
RECON |
DATE BOARDED | 1998 December 16
TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD
DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1983 February 14
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-40.  .  .  .  .
DISCHARGE REASON | N/A
BOARD DECISION | DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY |
ISSUES         1. | 110.00
2. |
3. |
4. |
5. |
6. |