| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. George D. Paxson | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Member | |
| Mr. Richard T. Dunbar | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his administrative discharge be changed to a medical discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: That he had post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) but at the time he was discharged the medical field was unaware of PTSD. He provides his three Reports of Transfer or Discharge, DD Forms 214, and a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rating decision as supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He was inducted into the Army on 24 July 1962. He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 112.10 (Heavy Weapons Infantryman). He was honorably discharged on 22 June 1964 for the purpose of immediately reenlisting on 23 June 1964. He served in Vietnam from on or about 19 September 1966 to on or about 18 September 1967 where he was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge and the Bronze Star Medal. He was again honorably discharged on 2 July 1968 for the purpose of immediately reenlisting on 3 July 1968.
On 17 April 1969, the applicant completed a mental status evaluation. The evaluation revealed an alert, cooperative man oriented as to time, place, and person. There was no evidence of hallucination, delusion, or other overt psychosis. He was diagnosed as an immature personality.
On or about 13 May 1969, the applicant’s commander recommended him for separation for unsuitability. The initial recommendation is not available; however, in the separation packet were statements from the applicant’s first sergeant and platoon leader. The first sergeant noted that the applicant proved himself to be an average soldier as far as duty hours were concerned but his after duty conduct left much to be desired. The platoon leader noted that, as a squad leader during the period January to March 1969, the applicant’s efficiency was good, especially while in the field. However, in garrison he seemed to lose some of his drive stemming from marital and alcohol-related problems.
On 13 May 1969, the applicant was advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated action. He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived personal appearance before such a board, waived representation by counsel, and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 19 May 1969, the applicant’s commander formally recommended him for separation for unsuitability under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. The commander noted that the applicant had verbally assaulted two officers in the battalion, had damaged government property, and had beaten his wife and another person. His medical records showed a progressive development of character and behavior disorders. He had been hospitalized on 30 November 1963 for a psychiatric evaluation and presented an immature personality and history of emotional lability (sic) at that time.
On 22 May 1969, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.
On 18 July 1969, the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unsuitability, in pay grade E-4. He had completed a total of 6 years, 11 months, and 25 days of creditable active service with no lost time.
Effective 1 September 1999, the VA granted the applicant a 100 percent disability rating because he was unable to secure a gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities. The rating decision did not state what his disabilities were.
Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. The regulation defines “physically unfit” as unfitness due to physical disability. The unfitness is of such a degree that a soldier is unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating in such a way as to reasonably fulfill the purposes of his employment on active duty.
Title 38, U. S. 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.
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 rating action by the VA does not necessarily demonstrate an error or injustice on the part of the Army. The VA, operating under its own policies and regulations, assigns disability ratings as it sees fit. The VA is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service in awarding a disability rating, only that a medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned. Consequently, due to the two concepts involved (i.e., the more stringent standard by which a soldier is determined not to be medically fit for duty versus the standard by which a civilian would be determined to be socially or industrially impaired), an individual’s medical condition may be rated by the VA as disabling and yet be found fit for duty by the Army
3. There is no evidence of record to show that the applicant was ever unfit for duty. In fact, his first sergeant and platoon leader had noted in statements for his separation packet that his efficiency was good and he was an average soldier except for his off-duty conduct.
4. 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
__gdp___ __wtm___ __rtd___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001063411 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020124 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 108.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064974C070421
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...
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 | CY2007 | 20070007633
The applicant requests that his disability with severance pay discharge be changed to a medical retirement. On 8 August 2005, an MEB referred the applicant to a PEB for diagnoses of: (1) PTSD, chronic, combat related; (2) sensor neural hearing loss, bilateral; (3) cervical spondylosis without myelopathy; (4) agoraphobia without panic disorder (medically acceptable); (5) partner relationship problems (medically acceptable); and (6) nicotine dependence (medically acceptable). On 21 February...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120011051
e. The division psychiatrist recommended he be psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command including separation from the military under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212. With respect to the medical discharge, although the applicant was diagnosed with a personality or character and behavior disorder that led to his discharge, by regulation, such conditions render an individual administratively unfit rather than unfit because of physical...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066844C070402
His medical records are not available. There is no available evidence of record and the applicant provides none to show that he had any serious medical condition other than a hearing problem. There is no evidence of record to show the applicant was offered separation; however, if he had been and had he requested separation he could not be have been considered for any disability benefits administered by the Army.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005012
Another platoon sergeant stated what when it came to performing his job as a Chaparral Squad Leader and caring for the needs of his Soldiers, the applicant(s performance) was of the highest standards. Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation for physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. He provided numerous statements of support with his appeal indicating he daily demonstrated his Soldier skills; that his...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080006873
Additionally, there is no evidence in his official records that indicate the applicant was ever deemed unfit to perform the duties of his grade, rank or specialty. The applicant continued to perform his duties in an outstanding manner right up until the time of his discharge, with no indication of any medical disabilities that interfered with the performance of his duties. It is also noted that the applicant was REFRAD after his return from Vietnam and subsequently enlisted in the Regular...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050004175C070206
If it appears the Soldier is not medically qualified to perform duty, the medical treatment facility commander will refer the soldier to a MEB. There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, that his medical condition was such that it precluded him from the performance of his military duties. Consequently, the applicant's medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100029173
He noted that the applicant requested to have his case considered by a board of officers. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. The fact that a civilian physician has found the applicant to have severe PTSD, as stated in her April 2010 letter, has no effect on the determination made by the Army at the time of his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022525
The applicant states he had other medical conditions that were not considered during the medical evaluation process. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) governs the evaluation for physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. As a result, the applicant was properly assigned a disability rating from the Army based on the unfitting diagnosed conditions at the time of his...