MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  10 June 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002080854

	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.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		Member	
	Ms. Shirley Powell		Member	

	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:  Reconsideration of his request for expunction of his Article 15 and bar to reenlistment from his records; change of his discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5 to a disability retirement; and promotion to pay grade E-7 with all due back pay and allowances.

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant defers to counsel.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  That the record contains ample evidence to show     the applicant was suffering from a persistent mood disorder that was grounds   for referral to a medical evaluation board (MEB).  Doctor R___ found there was ample evidence showing the applicant was suffering from a severe major Depressive Disorder as early as 11 August 1994.  On that date, the applicant was diagnosed by clinical psychologist Doctor D___ with Major Depressive Disorder, Single Episode, Severe without Psychotic Features.  

Counsel further contends that Doctor R___ also found that the disorder so affected the applicant's decision-making process as to negate any voluntary aspect of his separation request or behavior resulting in the imposition of the Article 15.  This position is supported by the Board of Veterans Appeals decision of 13 November 2001 that the applicant was suffering from a Major Depressive Disorder that was so severe as to merit a 70 percent disability rating.  The Board previously erred in finding that the applicant did not suffer from a medically unfitting condition.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 9 June 1999 (AR1999016935) and in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's reconsideration of his case on 27 September 2001 (AR2001051903).

A narrative from Doctor R___, dated 22 February 2002; a letter from Doctor D___, dated 5 February 2002; and the Board of Veterans Appeals decision dated 13 November 2001 are provided as new evidence not previously available.

In a letter dated 28 September 1994, Doctor D___ indicated that the applicant had been seen by him on four occasions with rapidly deteriorating functioning.  Test results indicated the applicant was a depressed, irritable, and highly suspicious individual.  He indicated the test results were valid and the applicant did not present as faking or malingering.  The letter also indicated the applicant's test results "indicate a highly responsible individual, nonetheless, who accepts responsibility for his actions."

On 13 November 2001, the Board of Veterans' Appeals increased the applicant's 50 percent rating for Major Depression with Psychotic Features to 70 percent from 10 June 1995 to 7 September 1997.  The Board of Veterans' Appeals also entitled him to a total disability rating for compensation based on unemployability from 10 June 1995 to 7 September 1997.

By letter dated 5 February 2002, Doctor D___ stated that the applicant was evaluated in August 1994 and test results indicated a major depression.  He stated that diagnosis most certainly affected the applicant's overall functioning with regard to thoughts, behaviors, and feelings in a negative manner, impeding his ability to function in a normal fashion.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, 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 this requirement.

2.  The Board has considered Doctor R___'s current evaluation of the applicant's condition at the time he was separated from the Army.

3.  The Board also notes that in February 2002, Doctor D___ indicated the applicant had been diagnosed with a major depression, such diagnosis most certainly affecting his thoughts, behaviors, and feelings in a negative manner.  

4.  However, in September 1994 Doctor D___ stated the applicant's test results "indicate a highly responsible individual, nonetheless, who accepts responsibility for his actions."  

5.  The Board concludes that the currently provided evidence fails to reconcile how the applicant, determined by competent medical authority at the time to be a highly responsible individual who accepted responsibility for his actions, could be found to be unfit for military duty. 

6.  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.

7.  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

__sc___  __jm____  __sp____  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002080854	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030610	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.