MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 1 August 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002070652

         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. Stephanie Thompkins		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson
Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member
Ms. Regan K. Smith		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: In effect, enlisted bonus danger pay, travel pay and bonus pay, retired pay and a voluntary separation incentive (VSI).

APPLICANT STATES: That this error is in an injustice. He submits a statement in his own behalf and a copy of his Equifax credit file in support of his request.

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

He enlisted in the Georgia Army National Guard for 8 years as a private, pay grade E-1 on 31 October 1985. His military occupational specialty was track vehicle repairer.

He attained the grade of private first class, pay grade E-3, on 19 December 1990.

He was ordered to active duty for training effective 2 January 1991 in support of Operation Desert Shield/Storm.

On 8 May 1991, a medical evaluation board (MEB) found the applicant to be suffering from schizophrenia, disorganized, subchronic, manifested by delusions, marled loosening of associations and flattening of affect with delusional content noted to be bizarre at time, significant deterioration in occupational functioning during the fist 6 months of illness. The MEB concluded that the applicant's condition originated while he was on active duty and recommended that the applicant be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). The applicant agreed with the findings and recommendation.

On 21 May 1991, a PEB reviewed the medical evidence of record and concluded that the applicant suffered from schizophrenia, disorganized, severe. The PEB concluded that there was significant evidence to substantiate that the applicant's condition existed prior to service (EPTS) and was not aggravated by military service, but was the result of natural progression. The PEB found the applicant physically unfit for military service and not entitled to separation benefits.

On 22 May 1991, the applicant concurred with the PEB's findings and recommendations and waived a formal hearing of his case.

On 24 May 1991, the MEB provided a medical addendum and requested the PEB reconsider its EPTS finding. On 28 June 1991, the PEB found that the MEB's medical addendum did not provide any new substantive medical evidence and affirmed its decision to separate the applicant without benefits for an EPTS condition that was not permanently aggravated by military service.



He was honorably discharged in pay grade E-3 for physical disability without severance pay on 5 September 1991. He was credited with 4 years, 7 months and 7 days of inactive service and 1 year, 2 months and 17 days of creditable active service.

His records do not show he was promised a bonus. There are no documents in the available records to show that at the time of his entry onto active duty he was promised or entitled to bonus pay.

The Separation Handbook, Voluntary Incentive Programs to support Army draw-down indicates, in pertinent part, that “VSI, Special Separation Benefit (SSB) and separation pay are three kinds of pay for active-duty personnel affected by force reduction.” People tapped for a discharge because of the draw-down can choose either VSI or SSB. Specific requirements apply.

Army Regulation 135-180 prescribes the policy and procedures for granting retired pay benefits at age 60, under Title 10, United States Code, chapter 67, sections 1331 to 1337. Paragraph 2-8b specifies, in part, that only soldiers assigned to an active status in a Reserve unit. This regulation specifies that to be eligible for retired pay an individual must have attained age 60, and completed a minimum of 20 years of qualifying service; and that subsequent to 1 July 1949, qualifying service is granted only for each year of service an individual earns 50 or more retirement points.

Army Regulation 635-40 sets forth the basis authority for the evaluation of physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability. It provides for separation for physical disability without severance pay.

Army Regulation 635-40, also provides that hereditary, congenital and other conditions which existed prior to service 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 diagnosed or should have been diagnosed.

Title 10, United States Code, chapter 61, provides disability retirement or separation for a member who is physically unfit to perform the duties of his office, rank, grade or rating because of disability incurred while entitled to basic pay.





The Veterans Administration (VA), which has neither the authority nor the responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service, awards disability ratings to veterans for conditions that it determines were incurred during military service and subsequently affect the individual's civilian employability.

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 view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to a bonus, retired pay or VSI. He also has not shown entitlement to travel or danger pay. He has also not shown he was denied any of the pay requested. He has not shown error, injustice, or inequity as a basis for the relief he now requests.

2. The Board has noted his contentions; however, there are no documents in the available records, nor has the applicant submitted any documentation, other than his statement, that would indicate he was promised a bonus at the time of his 31 October 1985 enlistment.

3. The Board also noted that the applicant is not entitled to retired pay or VSI. His active duty service was interrupted by unfitness and he was separated prior to completion of his service. The applicant was an enlisted man for less than 20 years and was honorably discharged on 5 September 1991, and is not eligible for disability retirement or separation from the Army. Any request for compensation for any residuals of an illness or injury that he believes he suffered during his military service should more appropriately be addressed to the VA.

4. The Board concludes that he was appropriately discharged for physical unfitness in conformance with applicable regulations. It is also concluded that his discharge was based on physical disability and not an Army draw-down, further evidence that he is not eligible for VSI.

5. 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.

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

__SAC__ __MHM__ __RKS__ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002070652
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	20020801
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	128.00
2.	128.02
3.	136.00
4.
5.
6.