RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        28 JUNE 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040009451


      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. Kenneth H. Aucock             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Joe Schroeder                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Lawrence Foster               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette McCants              |     |Member               |

      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.  In effect, the applicant requests physical disability retirement or
separation.

2.  The applicant states that he had problems that he incurred while in the
service.  He has posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  He states that
doctor statements, his service documents, and the manner in which he was
discharged, bringing his brother and drugs [into it] when the problem was
not his, indicate that he should have received a medical discharge.  His
brother’s drug problems had no bearing on himself or his military record.
The records of his drug abuse should not have been in his file.  The
statement he made about his brother should not have reflected on him [the
applicant] or his discharge.  The only part of medical information he
agrees with is the “borderline syndrome” and that he was a threat to
himself and others.

3.  The applicant provides the documents indicated herein.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 26 August 1976.  The application submitted in this case
is dated     20 October 2004.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The evidence submitted in this case is that furnished by the applicant.
 His  DD Form 214 (Report of Separation) is not available, and the
information on some of the documents submitted is undecipherable; however,
there is sufficient evidence available for the Board to conduct a fair and
impartial review of this case.

4.  The applicant was a member of the Army National Guard of Indiana who
served on active duty at Fort Carson, Colorado in 1976.  On 23 August 1976
the applicant’s commanding officer notified him that he was initiating
action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-39, because his demonstrated character and
behavior characteristics were not compatible with military service.

5.  An undated statement provided by a behavioral science specialist and
approved by a staff psychiatrist at Fort Carson, indicates that the
applicant arrived for duty from the National Guard for training at Fort
Carson, and that he had at that time one week of service.  The specialist
stated that the applicant stated that he was extremely nervous in the Army,
that he could not eat or sleep and that he shook and felt like vomiting
three or four times a day.  The specialist stated that the applicant
reported some drug history and that on 14 December 1975 he overdosed on
“hog,” and that he was hospitalized at the Portland Hospital in Portland,
Indiana.  The specialist stated that he also reported being hospitalized as
a psychiatric patient from December 1975 to January 1976, and that he used
an alias at those hospitals.  The specialist stated that the applicant’s
hands shook during the interview, that he had small muscle tremors, and
that his speech was tense and flat.  He stated that the applicant appeared
very anxious.  The specialist stated that he felt that the applicant’s
anxiousness was genuine and that under stress he could become psychotic.
He stated that his impression was “Border-line syndrome.”  He recommended
that the applicant be discharged from the National Guard.

6.  The applicant’s commanding officer recommended to the separation
authority that the applicant be discharged from the Army under the
provisions of the trainee discharge program (TDP).  He indicated that the
applicant had enlisted on 7 August 1976.

7.  The separation authority approved the recommendation, indicating that
the applicant had not submitted any statements in his own behalf, and
directed that he be issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate.  He
requested that the applicant be separated by 26 August 1976.

8.  On 26 August 1976 the applicant was separated from the Army National
Guard of Indiana and as a Reserve of the Army.  His report of separation
indicates that he had 24 days of service.

9.  Medical records show:

      a.  Two medical notations dated in August 1975 (?) indicate that the
applicant had tremors and complained of incompatibility with Army life, and
complained of a nervous problem since December 1975.

      b.  In three pages of an apparent Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
rating decision, the applicant’s condition and medical history were
chronicled, and that the preponderance of the evidence was against the
veteran’s claim for service connection for a psychiatric condition.  The
decision indicated that there was no competent evidence to establish a
nexus between any of the diagnoses and his twenty-four days of military
service; and that the borderline personality diagnosis that he received
during service was for a condition that was considered developmental, and
not subject to service-connection.  It indicated that there was
insufficient competent evidence to establish the occurrence of an in-
service stressor that would lay a foundation for a diagnosis of PTSD that
was related to military service, and no evidence of any other acquired
psychiatric disorder that was related to military service.  His claim was
denied.

      c.  A 30 November 1999 medical record indicates that the applicant
received a check up for anxiety problems.  Medical records show that he was
seen on two other occasions for anxiety problems.

      d.  In a 24 November 2003 letter to the VA a doctor at the Indiana
Health Group stated that the applicant had been under his care for over
three years for treatment of panic disorder with agoraphobia and PTSD
related to an incident where a sergeant pulled a gun on him at age 17 when
he was in the military.

      e.  February 1983 medical records show that he was seen because of a
nervous condition.

      f.  Medical records dated in January and February 1977 show that the
applicant complained of being easily fatigued, and that he complained of
weakness, inability to work, some nausea, and abdominal ache.

      g.  On 7 February 2000 the applicant was examined by the Tennessee
Disability Determination Service.  The examining psychologist stated that
the applicant had a history of being discharged from the military due to
psychological problems and that he reported events in the military which
were traumatic for him and he had intrusive recollections of these events.
The psychologist state that the applicant had at least partial PTSD, and
that the combination of intellectual and psychological difficulties was
sufficient to represent a considerable degree of impairment.  He stated
that there was the additional problem of some somatic difficulties.

10.  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 program, known as the Trainee Discharge Program, mandated the award of
an honorable discharge.

11.  Army Regulation 635-40, then in effect, provides that when a member is
being separated by reason other than physical disability, his continued
performance of duty creates a presumption of fitness which can be overcome
only by clear and convincing evidence that he was unable to perform his
duties or that acute grave illness or injury or other deterioration of
physical condition, occurring immediately prior to or coincident with
separation, rendered the member unfit.

12.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s report of separation is not available; however, his
discharge from the Army National Guard of Indiana and as a Reserve of the
Army on         26 August 1976 is an indication that the applicant was
released from active duty on that date and returned to the National Guard
for discharge.

2.  The evidence shows that he was released from active duty under the
provisions of the trainee discharge program, having apparently served only
      24 days of active duty.  Although the complete separation proceedings
are unavailable, the evidence shows that he was notified of the initiation
of the proceedings, the reason thereof, and that he declined to submit a
statement in his own behalf.  Absent evidence to the contrary, his
administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable
regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to
jeopardize his rights.

3.  He was evaluated psychiatrically after having been in the Army for only
one week.   There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any,
to show that he had any medical condition requiring processing under the
physical disability evaluation system.  The VA in its undated decision
denied the applicant’s claim for service connected disability.

4.  The applicant did not have any medically unfitting disability which
required physical disability processing.  Therefore, there is no basis for
physical disability retirement or separation.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 26 August 1976; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on         25 August 1979.  The applicant did not file
within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling
explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice
to excuse failure to timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JS____  ___LF  __  ___JM __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




                                  ______Joe Schroeder_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040009451                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050628                                |
|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.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]