MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:



         BOARD DATE: 11 OCTOBER 2001
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001059786

         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
Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Joann Langston		Chairperson
Mr. Mark D. Manning		Member
Mr. Jose A. Martinez		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: That his records be corrected to reflect that he was medically retired or separated.

APPLICANT STATES: He has been diagnosed as “mentally impaired with severe depression, schizophrenia and PTSD [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder]” which “existed before and during [his] time in the service.” He contends that had he been properly diagnosed he would never have been allowed to enter the service and believes his mental illness inhibited his ability to comprehend the seriousness of his behavior. He states he was unable to “focus” because of his condition and was “easily distracted by outside influences.” He notes that he is now receiving “Social Security disability” and that his “impairment prevents [him] from maintaining meaningful employment.” In support of his request he submits a statement from his mother, who recounts his difficult youth, a statement from his attending physician who has been treating him since March 2000 for schizophrenia, and a psychological and neuropsychological evaluation summary from 1999.

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

He entered active duty on 14 October 1968. He indicated on his enlistment physical examination that his health was “good.” The evaluating physician noted that the applicant was a heavy smoker, with shortness of breath, and that he had occasional nightmares and chest pressure. He was found medically qualified for enlistment.

The applicant successfully completed basic training. In December 1968, while undergoing advanced individual training, the applicant departed AWOL (absent without leave). He returned to military control on 11 January 1969 and was convicted by a special court-martial. On 26 February 1969 the applicant’s unit commander initiated action to administratively separate him for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.

As part of the separation processing, the applicant underwent a physical examination which found him medically qualified for separation. He also underwent a mental hygiene and psychiatric evaluation. He was found to have “a history of civilian maladaptive behavior such as excessive use of drugs” and continued to use “LSD and other dangerous drugs while in the military.” He was diagnosed with an “emotionally unstable personality” which was determined to have existed prior to his entry on active duty (EPTS). The evaluating psychiatrists found that the applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, and that he had no mental or physical defects “warranting admission to, or final disposition through, medical channels.”

It appears that prior to finalization of the administrative separation action, the applicant was released from confinement and once again departed AWOL.
In December 1972, when charges were preferred after several periods of AWOL totaling more than 1000 days, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trail by court-martial. In an interview with his commander, the applicant stated that “his AWOL’s were caused by his inability to adjust to the military due to his involvement with drugs.” He also indicated that he wanted to “sever all his ties with the Army” and that he wanted to “leave the service as soon as possible.”

As part of his separation request, the applicant acknowledged he understood the nature and consequences of the undesirable discharge, which he might receive. He indicated he understood he could be denied some or all veterans' benefits as a result of his discharge and that he may be deprived of rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.

The applicant’s request was approved and on 21 February 1973 he was discharged under other than honorable conditions. At the time of his separation he had 10 months and 6 days of creditable service and more than 1200 days of lost time.

According to the 1999 psychological and neuropsychological evaluation, which the applicant submitted in support of his request, he was admitted to the Norristown State Hospital as a “transfer from Lower Bucks Hospital for continued treatment of depression, suicidality, and alcoholism.” The report indicated the applicant’s “history of depression began at the age of ten, and since 1986 he has had thirty psychiatric hospitalizations and he has attempted suicide by overdose six to seven times.” He was diagnosed with “major depression, recurrent; alcohol dependence, and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.” There is no indication that his condition was incurred or aggravated by his military service.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

Army Regulation 635-40, which establishes the policies and procedure for the separation or retirement of soldier’s by reason of physical disability states that soldier may not be referred for, or continue, physical disability processing when action has been started under any regulatory provision which authorizes a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions unless the general court-martial convening authority determines that the disability is the cause, or a substantial contributing cause, of the misconduct that might result in a discharge under other than honorable conditions.
Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph B-10, also 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 diagnoses or should have been diagnosed. It states that individuals who are unfit by reason of physical disability neither incurred nor aggravated during any period of service will be separated without entitlement to benefits.

Army Regulation 40-501, which outlines the standards of medical fitness for military personnel, states, in effect, that personality disorders may render an individual administratively unfit rather than unfit because of physical disability. Interference with performance of effective duty in association with these conditions will be dealt with through appropriate administrative channels.

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. There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, which confirms he had any medically unfitting disability which required physical disability processing or that such medical conditions were the basis for the charges which ultimately led to his separation for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability retirement or separation.

2. The fact that the applicant may have been diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia several years after his administrative separation from the military is not evidence that the separation was in error nor serve as a basis for disability retirement. The Board notes that in 1969 he was diagnosed with an “emotionally unstable personality” but not schizophrenia.

3. The applicant’s contention that had his “mental” condition been recognized prior to his entry on active duty he would never have been allowed to enlist, is noted. However, had that been the case he would still not have been entitled to any disability compensation. Conditions which are determined to have existed prior to an individual’s entry on active duty, which subsequently serve as a basis for their separation, are not compensated by disability payments unless there is evidence the condition was aggravated by the individual’s military service. On the contrary, the Board notes that the applicant successfully completed basic training, which tends to support a conclusion that he was capable of adhering to demanding military requirements. The applicant himself admitted that his subsequent periods of AWOL were related to his drug abuse.

4. 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.

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

__JL____ __MDM__ __JAM __ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001059786
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20011011
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	108.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.