RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:


         BOARD DATE: 25 MARCH 2004
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003092278


         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.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson
Mr. Lester Echols		Member
Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy, Jr.		Member

         The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).


1. The applicant requests, via six separate applications, that he be retired from the Army by reason of physical disability.

2. The applicant states, in effect, that he believes his physical impairments should have rendered him physically unfit for continued service and as such, he should have been medically retired from the Army.

3. The applicant provides extracts from his Navy and Army service medical records, documents regarding medical treatment subsequent to his separation from active duty, and extracts from his Department of Veterans Affairs records. The applicant also submits a multitude of additional documents including letters and documents associated with his postal service, education, wills, birth certificates, marriage and divorce decrees, and applications for benefits from a variety of organizations.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1. The applicant’s military records are not available to the Board. This case is being considered using reconstructed records, which primarily consist of documents provided by the applicant, including separation documents and service medical documents.

2. Documents available to the Board indicate that the applicant was an active member of the United States Naval Reserve between November 1984 and September 1988. On 10 September 1988 he enlisted in the United States Navy and served on active duty until 9 September 1991. He was released from the Navy with an honorable characterization of service in pay grade E-4 and assigned a RE (Reentry) Code of “1,” indicating that he was fully qualified for reenlistment at the time of his release from the Navy.

3. On 23 February 2000 he enlisted in the Regular Army in pay grade E-4. He indicated on his enlistment physical examination that his health was “good.” The evaluating physician found him medically qualified for enlistment with a physical profile of 1-1-1-1-1-1. The applicant was initially assigned to Fort Jackson, South Carolina but ultimately assigned to Germany as an administrative specialist (71L).

4. The applicant’s service medical records, which were provided by him in support of his application, indicate that he was treated for a variety of ailments while in the Army; including allergies, sleep apnea, low back pain, eczema, hemorrhoids, and rashes. He was issued a 30-day temporary profile in July 2001 for a left inguinal hernia and in September and October 2002 for low back pain. The applicant’s medical records also indicate that he was enrolled in the Army’s weight control program and was seen by medical personnel for weight management issues on several occasions. In July and August 2001 he was seen at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center’s Psychiatry Clinic for depression issues.

5. Notwithstanding the applicant’s numerous medical complaints, he successfully passed the Army’s Physical Fitness Test in April 2000, May 2000, October 2000, April 2001, October 2001, and April 2002.

6. According to a 5 November 2002 memorandum prepared by Headquarters, 1 ^st Armored Division, the applicant appeared before an Administrative Separation Board on 10 October 2002 regarding separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13 (Personality Disorder). The memorandum notes that the board’s recommendation that the applicant be separated with an honorable characterization of service was approved.

7. The applicant was honorably discharged on 18 November 2002. His separation document indicated that he was separated in pay grade E-3. His effective date for that pay grade is recorded as 28 May 2002. Documents provided by the applicant did not include a separation physical examination.

8. In April 2003 the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) granted the applicant a 10 percent disability rating for depression retroactive to 19 November 2002, the day following his discharge from the Army. The VA denied his remaining requests for disability compensation. He has appealed the VA decision.

9. Documents provided by the applicant indicate that he has continued to seek medical treatment for a variety of ailments subsequent to his discharge from the Army.

10. A 13 May 2003 statement from a physician indicated that “based on this session today and available records/history, the diagnosis of Personality Disorder seems very appropriate.”

11. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, provides for the administrative separation of soldiers with a personality disorder that interferes with assignment to or performance of duty.

12. Army Regulation 40-501 states 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. It also states that transient, situational maladjustment due to acute or special stress do not render an individual unfit because of physical disability, but rather may be the basis for administrative separation if recurrent and causing interference with military duty.

13. Army Regulation 635-40 states that disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to soldiers whose service is interrupted and they can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service.

14. Title 38, United States Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permit the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service. However, an award of a VA rating does not establish error or injustice in the basis for separation from the Army. An Army disability rating is intended to compensate an individual for interruption of a military career after it has been determined that the individual suffers from an impairment that disqualifies him or her from further military service. The 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 AND CONCLUSIONS :

1. Although the applicant may have been treated for a multitude of ailments while in the Army, none of those conditions were such that they impacted on his ability to perform his military duties while in the Army. The evidence of record indicates he did not have any medically unfitting disability which required physical disability processing. Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability retirement or separation.

2. The fact that he is receiving disability compensation from the VA does not compel the Army to change its basis or reason for separating an individual.

3. The evidence shows that the applicant was administratively discharged as a result of a personality disorder. An independent evaluation conducted in May 2003 concluded that the personality disorder diagnosis was appropriate.

4. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy that requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__ LLS ___ ___ LE __ __ TEO __ DENY APPLICATION


The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.





                  ___ Luther L. Santiful____
                  CHAIRPERSON

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003092278
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20040325
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.