Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8604967
Original file (8604967.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his previous request to correct his records by upgrading his undesirable discharge to general under honorable conditions.
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he tried to serve and couldn’t because of his disability and that he is receiving social security benefits for the very same disability; paranoid schizophrenia. That the undesirable discharge was wrong and in error.

 COUNSEL CONTENDS: Counsel concurs in the applicant's presentation and contends that mitigating factors should be considered in order to grant a less harsher discharge.`

 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 November 1988 (COPY ATTACHED)

The applicant submits four letters in support of his contention that his condition was misdiagnosed by the Army and that his condition existed at the time of his discharge.

One letter from a childhood friend describes how shocked he was to see the applicant in 1976 with his hair shaved off, his teeth knocked out and acting delusional. Three letters from the staff of, Volunteers of America, mental health services in Florida describe the applicants behavior and symptoms associated with schizophrenia over the past several years and the belief that his military service aggravated his condition. All four letters conclude the applicant should receive an upgraded discharge.

It was concluded in an advisory opinion obtained from the ARBA medical advisor that a review of evidence submitted by the applicant did not alter the previous decision of discharge.

Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 6 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, that an individual was subject to separation for unfitness because of an established pattern of shirking. When separation for unfitness was warranted an undesirable discharge was normally considered appropriate.

Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 2-2b, as amended, provides that when a member is being separated by reason other than physical disability, his continued performance of duty creates a presumption of fitness which can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that he was unable to perform his duties or that acute grave illness or injury or other deterioration of physical condition, occurring immediately prior to or coincident with separation, rendered the member unfit.

 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. Service medical records do not indicate any medical condition incurred while entitled to receive basic pay which was so severe as to render the applicant medically unfit for retention on active duty. At the time of the separation physical examination, competent medical authority determined that the applicant was then medically fit for retention or appropriate separation. Accordingly, the applicant was separated from active duty for reasons other than physical disability.

2. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.

3. Prior to reaching the determination that it was not in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file, the original Board looked at the entire file. It was only after all other aspects had been considered and it had been concluded that there was no basis to recommend a correction of the records that the Board considered the statute of limitations. 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 time limit. The Board has never denied an application simply because it was not submitted within the required time.

4. 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.

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

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
                                                      Loren G. Harrell
                                                       Director

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004106314C070208

    Original file (2004106314C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The 11 June 1986 letter provided by the applicant is new evidence which will be considered by the Board. On 23 March 1971, the applicant completed a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation. On 28 June 1971, the applicant was discharged, with an undesirable discharge, under other than honorable conditions, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8302910

    Original file (8302910.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. His 24 September 1962 report of medical examination...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001055248C070420

    Original file (2001055248C070420.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The VA’s 12 January 1994 decision to grant service connection for schizophrenia was available for this Board’s original consideration of the case. The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence had been submitted. The applicant has submitted no evidence to show that he was manifesting symptoms of, had a diagnosis of, or was treated for any physical, mental or psychological condition that would have warranted referral for a medical evaluation.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019809

    Original file (20100019809.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant reported he might be AWOL, but it was because he was hospitalized at the Jackson VA Hospital for 30 days. The medical records were provided by the applicant's counsel to show the hospitalization locations, dates, diagnosis, and attending physicians. location date diagnosis/attending physician 130th Station Hospital Germany 1-14 May 1974 chronic undifferentiated schizophrenia (Dr. C____) Brooke Army Medical Center 16 May-5 June 1974 acute moderate undifferentiated...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008704

    Original file (20080008704.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army physical disability evaluation system and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating. The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably perform their duties and assign an appropriate disability...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110001796

    Original file (20110001796.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 21 July 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20110001796 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his records to show he was medically retired by a reason other than schizophrenia. On 13 January 1976, a medical evaluation board (MEB) convened at WRAMC and after consideration of clinical records, laboratory findings, and physical examinations, the MEB found that the applicant was diagnosed as having the medical conditions...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010568

    Original file (20120010568.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. Once a determination of physical unfitness is made, the physical evaluation board rates all disabilities using the VA Schedule...

  • AF | BCMR | CY2006 | BC-1998-01124C

    Original file (BC-1998-01124C.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The decision noted the treatment for anxiety in the service and the 22 May 04 opinion of a DVA examination that concluded the applicant suffered from schizophrenia either during his military service or, more likely, in the year following military service in 1976. In a DD Form 149 dated 2 Sep 04, the applicant requested reconsideration, and submitted his 100% DVA rating for service- connected schizophrenia, 24 years after his discharge from the Air Force. The Consultant provided additional...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100023317

    Original file (20100023317.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of his records to show he was medically retired with full benefits instead of being discharged under Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, by reason of unsuitability with a general discharge. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) currently in effect establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004366C070208

    Original file (20040004366C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his records be corrected to show that his disability did not exist prior to service (EPTS), that it was service aggravated, and, in effect, that he be granted a medical retirement with a 100 percent disability rating. Counsel further states that the PEB's finding that the applicant had a long history of hospitalizations for psychiatric disturbances and schizoid traits is not supported by the applicant's records. The applicant's civilian medical history indicated...