RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           10 February 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003089264


      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             |
|     |Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti            |     |Analyst              |


  The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John N. Slone                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Linda M. Baker                |     |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).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests reconsideration of the Board’s denial of his
request to upgrade his general discharge to fully honorable.  He also
requests that the reason for his discharge be corrected to medical
disqualification.

2.  The applicant states that he had serious mental problems while he was
on active duty.  He contends that he should have been considered by a
Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), which he believes would have resulted in
his being given an honorable discharge due to medical disqualification.  In
a supplemental statement, the applicant adds that the pressure of his
sergeants yelling resulted in his hearing voices.  He then became fearful
of his fellow soldiers.  When he threatened to kill his section sergeant,
he was given a psychiatric evaluation and was then tried by a court-
martial.  He was found guilty and sentenced to 30 days confinement, a
forfeiture of pay, and a Bad Conduct Discharge (BCD).  While in
confinement, he was offered and accepted the opportunity to “soldier” his
way to a better characterization of service.  While in the retraining
brigade, he witnessed a fellow trainee attempt to murder another fellow
trainee.  This resulted in his being retained in the retraining brigade an
additional 5 months.  While he was in the retraining brigade, he attempted
suicide.

3.  The applicant provides three letters, one dated 18 September 2002 and
two dated 20 September 2002; a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) case
summary dated 23 September 2002 which shows the applicant was rated 100
percent disabled due to psychosis (paranoid schizophrenia); a letter from a
VA clinical psychologist who stated that he has treated the applicant for
paranoid schizophrenia since 28 June 1991.  The psychologist states that he
believes that the applicant’s unsatisfactory performance while on active
duty was the result of his mental illness; and other VA documents related
to his treatment and disability compensation.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number
AR2001060345, on 16 October 2001.







2.  The applicant’s discharge packet is still not locatable.  However, the
applicant’s records show that he was imprisoned on 15 June 1983, and became
a trainee while imprisoned on 24 June 1983.

3.  Army Regulation 635-40 provides that the medical treatment facility
commander with the primary care responsibility will evaluate those referred
to him and will, if it appears as though the member is not medically
qualified to perform duty or fails to meet retention criteria, refer the
member to a medical evaluation board.  Those members who do not meet
medical retention standards will be referred to a PEB for a determination
of whether they are able to perform the duties of their grade and military
specialty with the medically disqualifying condition.  For example, a
noncommissioned officer who receives above average evaluation reports and
passes Army Physical Fitness Tests (which have been modified to comply with
the individual’s physical profile limitations) after the individual was
diagnosed as having the medical disqualification would probably be found to
be fit for duty.  The fact that the individual has a medically
disqualifying condition does not mandate the person’s separation from the
service.  Fitness for duty, within the perimeters of the individual’s grade
and military specialty, is the determining factor in regards to separation.
 If the PEB determines that an individual is physically unfit, it
recommends the percentage of disability to be awarded which, in turn,
determines whether an individual will be discharged with severance pay or
retired.

4.  Title 38, United States Code, permits the 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 lack of an Army rating.  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 employability.  Accordingly, it is not
unusual for VA to award a veteran a disability rating when the veteran was
separated for reasons other than physical unfitness.  Furthermore, unlike
the Army the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime,
adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency’s
examinations and findings.








DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  By the applicant’s own admission, he was given a psychiatric evaluation
after he threatened to kill his section sergeant.  Therefore, in the
absence of evidence of a diagnosis of psychiatric illness at that time, it
must be assumed that the applicant was free from any significant mental
illness at the time of his separation.

2.  While the applicant’s psychologist believes that the applicant’s
unsatisfactory performance while on active duty was the result of his
mental illness, the psychologist has not submitted any clinical evidence to
support his opinion.  Since the psychologist stated that he started
treating the applicant for paranoid schizophrenia on 28 June 1991, which
was 7 ½ years after the applicant’s discharge, it must be presumed that
this psychologist’s assessment is based primarily on the history provided
by the applicant, himself.

3.  The letters submitted in the applicant’s behalf have been carefully
considered.  The letter from his wife does not support his contentions
since she states that she met the applicant well after his discharge.
While the two letters from family members attest that the applicant’s
behavior changed after his military service, neither individual is
qualified to make a medical diagnosis.  The fact that the applicant’s
behavior differed from when he entered the military is not surprising,
especially in consideration of the fact that he served time in confinement.

4.  The applicant’s VA rating has also been considered.  This rating only
shows that the VA has determined that his paranoid schizophrenia was
service connected, and it is now disabling.  This rating decision in no way
indicates that the applicant was physically unfit while he was on active
duty.

5.  Since there is no conclusive evidence that the applicant was medically
disqualified or physically unfit to perform his duties, there is no basis
in which to recommend changing his general discharge or reason for
discharge.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___rtd___  ___jns___  ____lb __  DENY APPLICATION




BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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 to amend the decision of
the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR2001060345, on 16 October 2001.




            __________John N. Slone___________
                    CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2003089264                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040210                                |
|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.       |108.01                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |