Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8302910
Original file (8302910.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his previous request to correct his records by upgrading his undesirable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES : In effect that acute anxiety reaction impaired his ability to serve and lead to his periods of AWOL and eventual discharge. That due to this condition the authority for his discharge should have been Army Regulation (AR) 635-209 “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)” where normally a general or honorable discharge is given in lieu of AR 635-208 “Misconduct, undesirable traits and habits” where normally an undesirable discharge is received. He also contends that his post-service behavior and conduct warrant an upgrade of his discharge.

He also contends that his post service medical conditions comprising heart attacks and strokes confirm that one doctor’s entry on his service medical records “I believe he has organic heart disease” was true and possibly qualifies him for a medical discharge.

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

 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 22 June 1983 (COPY ATTACHED).

The contention that he was discharged under the wrong discharge authority, and that he had a heart condition and PTSD prior to his discharge and that his post service adjustment warrants review constitutes new argument.

In support of a post-service adjustment argument he asks the Board to review, a letter from a friend since February 1982 dated 14 May 1982 which states he is changing his lifestyle for the better; a letter of character reference from a former employer that states he was industrious and an aggressive learner; and a letter to the applicant from an employer January 1977 to March 1979 stating he had “demonstrated an attitude of complete willingness and cooperation”.

He submits as medical evidence copies of medical service record entries in which one entry a doctor speculates, in effect, “that because of poor performance he is most likely being considered for separation under AR 625-209”. Another medical entry stipulates a diagnosis of “anxiety reaction severe enough to render him currently unfit for duty” He also submits two copies of undated test results and the first page of his separation physical. Additional documents are two letters from the Department of Public Health, Seattle, WA dated 22 September 1982 showing treatment of alcoholism from 14 July 1981 to November 1981 and a completion certificate of a four month treatment program 14 May 1981.

His 24 September 1962 report of medical examination for his second enlistment separation shows that he was found qualified for separation (and therefore for retention). In the medical history he provided for that examination he reported “good health.”

PTSD, an anxiety disorder, was not recognized as a psychiatric disorder until 1980 with the publishing of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) III. The condition is described in the current DSM-IV, pages 424 through 427. While PTSD has only been categorized by psychiatrists as a distinct diagnosis since 1980, it has, as early as the Civil War, been described in psychological literature, variously labeled as shell shock, soldier's heart, effect syndrome, combat fatigue and traumatic neurosis. Although the current label of PTSD is of rather recent acceptance, the idea that catastrophes and tragedies can result in persistent emotional and psychological symptoms is common even among the lay public. Army Regulation 40-501 does not specifically categorize PTSD; however, it does address anxiety or neurotic disorders, which include PTSD, and provides that such disorders are unfitting only if persistence or recurrence of symptoms is sufficient to require extended or recurrent hospitalization, creates a necessity for limitations of duty or duty in a protected environment or resulting in interference with effective performance of military duty.

Army Regulation 635-208, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness. Unfitness included repeated petty offenses/frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with military or civilian authorities. Action to separate an individual was to be taken when, in the judgment of the commander, rehabilitation was impractical or was unlikely to produce a satisfactory soldier.

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. The medical records submitted as evidence were dated for periods in the applicant’s first enlistment in which he was honorably discharged and met fitness standards to immediately reenlist. Furthermore, his contentions about separation under AR 635-209 ignores the fact that the mental health professionals conducting his evaluation specifically recommended separation for misconduct under AR 635-208.

2. There is no evidence in the applicant’s military records that, at the time of the numerous offenses that led to his discharge, the applicant was suffering from an anxiety disorder so severe that he could not tell right from wrong and adhere to the right.

3. He 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. The general court-martial convening authority (GCMA) could have authorized physical disability processing based only on finding that the disability was the cause or a substantial contributing cause of the misconduct or when specific circumstances warrant disability rather than administrative separation.

4. The applicant’s adjustments to civilian life are noted by the Board but these matters are not so exemplary nor exceptional as to demonstrate an injustice in the discharge.

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

6. 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

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8500312

    Original file (8500312.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT STATES : In effect that post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) prevented him from following orders. The applicant’s recent adjustments to civilian life and his parents’ concerns are noted but these matters are not so exemplary nor exceptional as to demonstrate an injustice in the discharge. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8809281

    Original file (8809281.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    He submits 1994 medical reports and evaluations from the Northwest Georgia Regional Hospital describing his alcohol and drug addictions and other mental and emotional problems. He 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. Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it undoubtedly would have recommended relief in spite of the failure to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9307187

    Original file (9307187.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

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

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8209981A

    Original file (8209981A.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. DISCUSSION : Considering...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072677C070403

    Original file (2002072677C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. At the time of the separation physical examination, competent medical authority determined that the applicant was then medically fit for retention or appropriate separation. The applicant’s claim that he now has PTSD because of his experiences in Vietnam is not supported by any evidence in his record, nor has the applicant submitted any evidence thereof.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001055784C070420

    Original file (2001055784C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual’s medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for DVA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9207856

    Original file (9207856.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION : Incorporated herein is a summarization of the applicant’s military records prepared to reflect the Board’s original consideration of his case on 1 February 1995. A copy of the decision, by the general court-martial convening authority (GCMCA), must be forwarded with the disability case file to the physical evaluation board. While PTSD was not recognized as a specific illness at the time of the applicant's separation from the service, the fact that an...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001241

    Original file (20090001241.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 25 March 1970, while in Vietnam, the applicant was evaluated by a psychiatrist. Since there is insufficient evidence of record to show that the applicant's medical condition was medically unfitting for retention at the time in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501, there was no basis for medical separation or retirement.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9607940C070209

    Original file (9607940C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant did not have any medically unfitting disability which required physical disability processing. The VA has determined that the applicant did not have a bipolar disorder, but PTSD and has rated her 50 percent disabling because of that condition. The VA is not required to determine fitness for duty at the time of separation.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9710467

    Original file (9710467.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Board considered the following evidence: At that time he stated that he had not been hospitalized since his hospitalization in the Army. Psychiatric experts at the PDA state that the applicant’s military treatment records support that finding.