APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his records be corrected to show that his separation was based on a physical disability.
APPLICANT STATES: That he was granted a disability rating of 30 percent by the VA upon his separation from active duty.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military and medical records show:
On 25 July 1967, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army. He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 36K (Field Wireman). He was advanced to pay grade E-3 effective 28 December 1967.
During the period 19 December 1967-12 April 1968, the applicant is credited with service in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN).
In March or April 1968, VA records show that the applicant went to Hawaii for Rest and Recuperation. After being there for only one day, he proceeded to Long Island, New York, where he developed an anxiety reaction and depression. At some unspecified time, he became a patient at Valley Forge General Hospital, Phoenixville, Pennsylvania.
On 12 June 1968, a physical examination cleared the applicant for separation and noted that he had an emotionally unstable personality which had existed prior to service.
During the period 30 June-1 July 1968, the applicant was absent without leave, however, there is no indication of disciplinary action taken.
On 16 July 1968, the unit commander informed the applicant that he had initiated action to separate him under Army Regulation 635-212, for unsuitability, based on his emotionally unstable personality and of his rights. The applicant, with legal counsel, acknowledged the notification; waived consideration of and personal appearance before a board of officers; elected not to make statements in his own behalf; and waived legal representation.
On 23 July 1968, the appropriate separation official approved his separation and directed he be issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate.
On 6 August 1968, he was separated, in pay grade E-3, under the above cited regulation. His Report of Separation indicates that he had 1 year and 12 days of creditable service and 2 days of lost time. He was entitled to award of the National Defense Service Medal and the Vietnam Service Medal.
On 16 January 1997, a VA Rating Decision indicated that the applicant had been granted a service-connected disability rating of 100 percent, effective 4 January 1997, for post traumatic stress disorder. Previously, he had been rated at 30 percent, effective 7 August 1968. This same decision denied service-connection for Hepatitis C, Hemorrhoids, substance abuse (willful misconduct), and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV).
Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from active duty. That regulation provided, in pertinent part, that commanders would separate a member when, in the commanders judgment, it was clearly established that the member would not develop sufficiently to become a satisfactory soldier. When separation for unsuitability was warranted, an honorable or general discharge, as directed by the convening authority, could be issued.
Title 38, United States Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service. The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service. The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned. Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individuals 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 VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency.
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 the aforementioned requirement.
2. The evidence in this case does not support his contention that there was an error or injustice in his separation from active duty.
3. The rating by the VA does not necessarily demonstrate any error or injustice by the Army, since the applicant met medical retention standards at the time of separation.
4. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicants 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
Karl F. Schneider
Acting Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001750
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 6 October 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150001750 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. On 9 February 1967, discharge proceedings were initiated to separate him for unsuitability under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations Discharge Unfitness and Unsuitability). The evidence shows he was diagnosed with a personality disorder by competent medical authorities in 1967 and he was discharged for unsuitability due to a character and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090001241
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 | CY2004 | 04101078C070208
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 19 AUGUST 2004 DOCKET NUMBER: AR2004101078 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. On 17 March 1970 the applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9610823C070209
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military and medical records show: On 16 August 1965, the applicant was inducted into the Army of the United States. On 2 November 1994, almost 27 years after his separation from active duty, a VA Rating Decision awarded the applicant a service-connected disability rating of 100 percent, effective 23 February 1994, for glomerulonephritis with hypertension, requiring dialysis. The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087384C070212
On 5 March 1969, based on the recommendations made in the psychiatric report, the unit commander submitted his recommendation that the applicant be considered for discharge from the Army for unsuitability under the provision of AR 625-212. The applicant was discharged under honorable conditions on 1 April 1969, in the rank of Specialist Four, pay grade E-4, under the provisions of AR 635-212 for unsuitability based on a character and behavior disorder. There is no indication in the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063411C070421
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 Board considered the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021790
On 13 April 1968, his immediate commander notified him by memorandum that he was being recommended for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations) by reason of unsuitability for military service due to apathy and complete lack of respect for disciplinary action and military authority. Accordingly, he was discharged on 3 May 1968. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and the character of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004344
When separation for unsuitability was warranted, an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individuals entire record. The evidence of record shows the applicants separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability was administratively correct, all requirements of law and regulations were met, the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process, and the applicant was properly...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056900C070420
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. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: At that time, he was found to be medically qualified for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140013681
On 16 May 1968, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations - Discharge - Unfitness and Unsuitability) by reason of unsuitability citing the applicant's poor attitude and record of disciplinary actions. Subsequent to this acknowledgement, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of...