MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:



         BOARD DATE: 03 JUNE 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003083418

         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:

Mr. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson
Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Member
Mr. Paul M. 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, disability retirement or separation.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was on “altering meds” at the time he was being counseled by his drill sergeant for his behavior, which the drill sergeant noted, “warranted a discharge under the trainee discharge program.” He contends that he was unfairly discharged and was being treated for swollen feet, asthma, and nasal congestion. He states that the medication he was taking (Actifed/Robitussin/Entex), “along with anxiety” cause his behavior and that according to information he has obtained he should not have been permitted to “drive, operate machinery, or perform other hazardous activities….” He notes he was undergoing basic combat training at the time he was taking the medication and had recently completed “bivouac.” He maintains that his medical information was not being provided to his drill sergeant and his drill sergeant was not reporting his behavior back to his physician. In support of his request he submits citations extracted from the internet (www.mywebmd.com) regarding possible side effects associated with taking Actifed, Robitussin, and Entex. He also submits copies of his service medical treatment records.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD: Files available to the Board indicate:

In December 1999 the applicant submitted a request to have his records corrected to permit him to return to military service, and if that were not possible to corrected his records to show that he suffered from a panic disorder. His request was administratively closed on 20 July 2000 (AR2000035693) when attempts to locate his service personnel records was not successful.

In June 2001 the Board was able to locate the applicant’s records and then denied his November 2000 request (AR2000046724) to have his records corrected to show that he was discharged under the TDP for “anxiety and panic disorder.”

In February 2002 the Board denied the applicant’s request (AR2001061016) to again permit him to obtain a waiver in order to return to military service, or in the alternative, to explain why he could not receive a waiver.

Because the applicant is now requesting a medical discharge, and service medical records were available to the Board, the Board considers the applicant’s current request as a new issue and is reviewing it accordingly.

The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the United States Army Reserve on 28 September 1978 and was ordered to active duty for the purpose of undergoing OSUT (One Station Unit Training) on 4 January 1979. He indicated on his enlistment physical examination that his health was “GOOD.” The applicant was 18 years old at the time of his enlistment and had aptitude scores ranging from 69 to 94, including a GT (general technical) score of 90. He had completed 9 years of formal education.

Orders contained in the applicant’s file indicate that on 10 January 1979 he was reassigned from the Reception Station at Fort Jackson to the Records Processing Unit, and effective 26 January 1979 he, along with 38 other soldiers, was relieved from Company D and assigned to Company E of the 3^rd Battalion, 1^st Student Training Brigade.

The same day he was assigned to Company E (26 January 1979), the applicant sought medical treatment for trouble breathing “after running or marching.” He indicated that he had been treated for asthma prior to enlisting and that he was not taking any medication at the time. The evaluating physician noted that the applicant’s heart rhythm was regular and that his lungs were clear. However, he did note that the applicant had some nasal congestion and that his tonsils were slightly enlarged, but without any infection. He concluded that the applicant was suffering from an upper respiratory infection and prescribed Actifed (twice a day for 15 days) and Robitussin.

On 7 February 1979 the applicant was counseled by his drill sergeant for exhibiting behavior that did not “seem appropriate for service situation.” He noted that the applicant seemed to be out of contact with the group during training periods, that he was forgetful and irresponsible regarding his duties and details. The drill sergeant indicated that the applicant told him that he (the applicant) had a traumatic childhood, which included abuse from his parents and grandmother. The drill sergeant recommended that the applicant be removed from training. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the counseling statement.

That same day, 7 February, the applicant sought treatment for swollen feet. The examining physician noted that the applicant reported a history of asthma and that he was not taking any medication. The physician concluded the applicant was likely suffering from acute respiratory distress and prescribed Entex to be taken every six hours and Robitussin. The applicant’s 7 February medical treatment information was recorded on the reverse side of the treatment record which recorded the applicant’s 26 January 1979 medical treatment.

On 9, 12, 13, and 14 February 1979 the applicant was counseled again. The counseling sessions again noted the applicant was having trouble adjusting, that he was confused and having “severe problems grasping instructions being put out to him.” In one instance the applicant indicated that he could not take anymore of the Army and that he wanted out of the service. In each instance, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the counseling documents. The
14 February 1979 counseling session was with a chaplain who recommended the applicant be separated from the military “due to his instability.”

On 14 February 1979 a senior drill sergeant also counseled the applicant. During that session the applicant indicated that he was having family problems, which were conflicting with his training.

On 15 February 1979 the applicant’s unit commander initiated action to administratively separate the applicant from active duty under the Trainee Discharge Program. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation and waived his attendant rights, including the right to make a statement in his own behalf and to undergo a separation physical examination.

The applicant was honorably discharged on 23 February 1979. He had 1 month and 20 days of active Federal service at the time.

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.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 5 of the regulation provided, at that time, for the administrative separation of individuals who had demonstrated during the first 180 days of training that they lacked the necessary motivation, discipline, ability or aptitude to become effective soldiers. This administrative separation procedure was known as the Trainee Discharge Program (TDP). Upon notification of the proposed discharge, soldiers were permitted to submit rebuttal statements. They were also permitted to request a separation medical examination. Soldiers discharged under the TDP received an honorable discharge.

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. The applicant’s contention that his prescription medications resulted in the conduct, which led to his administrative separation, and that medical officials were not keeping his chain of command informed regarding his medication, is without foundation.

2. The Board notes that in spite of being counseled on several occasions, the applicant never raised his medications as a possible reason for his behavior. Additionally, it is unreasonable to believe that the applicant’s chain of command would not have been aware that the applicant had sought medical treatment, in view of the fact that he was in a training environment. The Board notes that in an initial training environment the soldier’s day would have been extremely structured and a trainee would have been unable to go to the hospital, receive medication, and then take that medication, without someone in his chain of command being aware of the situation.

3. The Board also notes that the applicant, when given the opportunity to request a separation physical examination, declined to do so. The evidence of record supports a conclusion that the applicant was unhappy with the military and was content to be administratively separated. There is no evidence to support separation by reason of disability.

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 that 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

__JHL___ __JLP___ __PMS__ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003083418
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20030603
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.