RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         21 DECEMBER 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004105089


      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. Fred Eichorn                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Paul Smith                    |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Semma Salter                  |     |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.  The applicant requests that his ROTC (Reserve Officer Training Corps)
debt, resulting from recoupment of his scholarship, be cancelled.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he began feeling badly while
attending college under an ROTC scholarship and that by the time he was
commissioned and scheduled for AOBC (Armor Officer Basic Course) he was
having trouble sleeping, loss of appetite, and was unable to focus.  He
believed that his problems stemmed from the emotional trauma of contracting
genital herpes at age 21.

3.  After reporting to Fort Knox in September 1996 he states he was unable
to deal with the thought of having a roommate who might become aware of his
“condition” and believed that he (the applicant) “was dysfunctional in some
way” and as such checked into a hotel.  He states his previous symptoms
only increased and he ultimately sought psychiatric help at the hospital at
Fort Knox.

4.  The applicant states that he passed a series of physical evaluations
and was referred to a psychiatrist who also conducted a series of tests.
He states that during this time he was supposed to begin OBC but asked that
his start date be delayed in order to resolve his “medical dilemma.”

5.  He states that following his evaluation he was told that a “program”
would be put together “that suits [his] needs, so that [he] could enter an
AOBC course as soon as possible.”  However, his attending psychiatrist (Dr.
R) believed he would be fine if they just put him into an AOBC class, and
made no mention of any treatment plan or monitoring procedures.  He states
he felt betrayed and at one point Dr. R asked him directly if he wanted to
get out of the military.  He states he responded that he did not intend to
make the military a career but that he was more than willing to serve the
four years he was obligated for as a result of his ROTC scholarship.

6.  The applicant states that just prior to beginning his OBC class he
“conceded to take an anti-depressant” and that initially he believed that
the medication was helping and made a statement to his senior officer that
he “believed the medication was working and that [he] should soon be back
to [his] full self.”  He states that “unfortunately, this statement turned
out to be a fallacy” and that within two weeks of beginning his course he
“started to experience various symptoms” including the “shakes” and as such
missed class on two days in November 1996.  The applicant recounts in
detail however several people stated that he looked like “death warmed
over” and that their reactions to his physical appearance only confirmed to
him that he was ill.  He states, in effect, that no one believed he was
truly ill, in spite of his appearance.  After being late returning from
lunch, following the days he missed class, he was removed from his class
and permanently assigned to staff duty.

7.  He states he was no longer taking any medication and “was simply
waiting for the proceeding to determine if [he] should be court-martialed.”
 While waiting he met with senior commanders, including the regimental
commander.  He stated that during his meeting with the regimental commander
he remembered that the regimental commander had a packet “which had been
assembled concerning [his] actions” and that the commander “verbally
assailed the actions that were listed.”  He states the regimental commander
mentioned that he (the applicant) “had been going from doctor to doctor
trying to find someone who would concede that there was something wrong
with [him], even when in his [the regimental commander’s] estimation, [he]
was in perfect health.”  The applicant stated that nothing could be further
from the truth and that he was “shuffled from doctor to doctor” and related
his symptoms to each doctor “but for the most part, they turned a deaf ear
to [him].”

8.  Ultimately, he states he received a letter of reprimand and that while
all of his symptoms continued to exist he was “relatively stable until
March 1997” when he completely lost his sense of reality and was finally
hospitalized at a Veterans Hospital near Fort Knox.  He recounts in detail
the events which preceded his hospitalization, including his feelings, what
he was doing, and that in his mind he believed that he was Jesus or Satan.
He also recounts details about his hospitalization.  He states that he was
an inpatient from 21 March to 26 March 1997 and that during his stay he
“never received a diagnosis for [his] situation, nor after [his] discharge,
did either the Veterans’ Administration Hospital or Ft. Knox’s Hospital
provided instructions for follow-up care.”  He also notes that he was not
placed on any medication.

9.  The applicant states that he returned to his post as a staff duty
officer and that things were back to “normal….”

10.  The applicant states that once the decision not to court-martial him
was made the decision was made to discharge him.  He states that military
lawyers were seeking an “other than honorable (a.k.a. dishonorable)”
discharge but his lawyer submitted paper work suggesting an honorable or
general discharge.  He states that after all of the documents proceeded up
the chain of command to the highest levels, he was given a general
discharge and the recoupment of his scholarship was placed into effect.  He
states that he submitted his resignation and was discharged in August 1997.
11.  The applicant recounts his medical problems following his discharge,
his hospitalization again in February 1998, inability to work, and the
increased pressure to meet his debt obligations, and his decision to return
to his family in California because his therapist and psychiatrist felt
that he “needed a tremendous amount of support.”

12.  The applicant recounts his current medical treatment and medication to
combat his psychiatric illness, Schizoaffective Disorder.

13.  The applicant states that while the military doctors believed nothing
was wrong with him, the evidence speaks differently and that if nothing was
wrong with him he would never have done the things he did because he
believed he was Jesus and he would not have been hospitalized.

14.  He acknowledges that he made some mistakes while in the military and
should have followed up or “double checked” to make sure everyone knew
where he was on the days he missed class, but he was concerned about his
health.  He stated he felt like no one was listening to him, because no one
was.  He is asking that the Board “alleviate some of [his] burden by
forgiving the debt that [he] owe[s] the military” and that the debt was
incurred without considering his health issues.  He states that he does not
believe he should be punished for being ill while in the military and for
still suffering with that illness now.

15.  In addition to his 37 page self-authored statement, the applicant also
provides extracts from his medical treatment documents associated with his
March 1997 hospitalization, his February 1998 hospitalization, his
diagnosis of Schizoaffective Disorder, and continued treatment associated
with that disorder.  He also submits evidence that he is receiving social
security benefits, Department of Veterans Affairs benefits, and that it has
been determined that he is no longer responsible for his financial
obligations to the Princeton University/Student Loans because of his
disability.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests that the applicant’s Army ROTC educational debt be
canceled.

2.  Counsel states that the applicant’s debt “which the principal amount is
$42,637.52” has swelled, over the past six and one half years, to
$59,078.01, with “ongoing accrual of interest.”

3.  Counsel states that he is the applicant’s attending psychiatrist and
that the applicant has suffered from “a chronic debilitating mental illness
for seven years” and that his diagnosis is “Schizoaffective Disorder,
Bipolar Type.”  Counsel also recounts the applicant’s two periods of
hospitalization and his continued medical treatment, that his disability
has been recognized by Social Security, and that in December 2002 the
Department of Veterans Affairs awarded him benefits for his service
connected disability.

4.  Counsel maintains that recoupment of the applicant’s Army ROTC
scholarship is “inherently unfair and places an unjust financial burden
upon [the applicant] which constitutes a major, ongoing psychological
stressor.”  He states the applicant has no control of his symptoms or the
development of his illness.  He states there is no documentation subsequent
to his initial hospitalization that supports the idea that the applicant
“has ever feigned symptoms for secondary gain.”  On the contrary, notes
counsel, it is “clear that the illness [the applicant] has developed while
on active duty was, in fact, the beginning of a severe and chronic mental
illness.”  He states that at no time, following his discharge from the
military has the applicant been able to work.

5.  Counsel states that the applicant continues his struggle for stability
and recovery to this day and that it is not reasonable to conclude that the
applicant would have thrown away a Princeton education and promising
military career for the purpose of getting out of military service.  He
states that the applicant’s outstanding debt and the ongoing correspondence
he receives from the military regarding his debt are continuing sources of
significant stress and serve to impede his progress toward returning toward
a functional state of mental health.

6.  Counsel provides nothing beyond that provided by the applicant.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant was
commissioned as a United States Army Reserve second lieutenant on 4 June
1996 following completion of his studies at Princeton University with an
ROTC scholarship.  The applicant was days shy of turning 23 years old at
the time of his commissioning.  He had successfully completed airborne
training in 1992.

2.  Orders issued on 10 June 1996 ordered the applicant to active duty for
a 4-year period commencing with Advanced Camp Cadre Duty at Fort Bragg,
North Carolina on 16 June 1996.  The orders indicated that following
advanced camp the applicant would report to Fort Knox, Kentucky to commence
AOBC beginning on 2 October 1996.
3.  On 13 September 1996 the applicant reported to Fort Knox.

4.  According to a patient appointment list, the applicant had appointments
with three different physicians on eight different occasions between 17
September 1996 and 3 October 1996.  A 9 October 1996 memorandum from the
Supervisory Social Worker, Behavioral Medicine Clinic stated that the
applicant presented to the Behavioral Medicine Clinic at Ireland Army
Community Hospital (Fort Knox) on 19 September 1996 with “unexplained
physical symptoms effecting his eyesight, reduced sensory abilities, and
numbness.”  At the time, no medical reasons for his problems were confirmed
and the applicant was undergoing a full psychological evaluation.  The
social worker recommended that the applicant be allowed to delay the start
date of his OBC until his evaluation had been completed.

5.  A 7 November 1996 memorandum of record, authored by the OIC (Office in
Charge), Cadre C, noted that on 4 November 1996 the applicant was not
present for training and his student chain of command reported him absent.
One student indicated that he thought the applicant had gone on sick call.
Telephonic attempts to contact the applicant were not successful and
ultimately several members indicated they had spoken with the applicant and
that he was absent because he was sick.  When the OIC attempted to contact
the applicant he was not successful and believed that the applicant had
“simply failed to give [him-the OIC] his sick call slip.”  A negative
counseling statement was prepared to ensure the applicant kept the OIC
informed and it was his (the OIC’s) intention to counsel the applicant when
he returned.  That same evening, 4 November 1996, two other OBC lieutenants
informed the OIC that they went to see the applicant and he again stated
that he was sick.

6.  The applicant failed to report the next morning and when contacted
stated that he was absent due to sick call.  The OIC indicated that he
continued to attempt to contact the applicant via telephone, leaving
messages, but received no response.

7.  When the applicant finally reported to the OIC the OIC indicated that
the applicant described his condition, saying he had not slept or eaten in
several days and his body in general did not function.  He admitted he had
not gone to the hospital during his three-day absence but was about to call
an ambulance for himself when “CPT G” arrived.  He noted that the applicant
failed to contact him (the OIC) because he (the applicant) did not get his
phone number when it was given out in class, and in spite of receiving
phone numbers from several students who came to see him, he did not feel it
was a good time to call.

8.  The OIC noted that the applicant answered his questions respectfully,
but his overall conduct was unprofessional and that he “ate a bag of
Cheetos throughout the session even though he said he had not eaten in
days.”  The OIC stated that the applicant signed the counseling statement
and then drove him to the emergency room where he left the applicant in the
waiting room with instructions that he would see the applicant the
following morning with his gear for training or with a slip from the
hospital authorizing him to miss training.

9.  A 7 November 1996 mental status evaluation, conducted by Dr. R, noted
that the applicant was fully alert and oriented, and his thought process
clear and normal.  It noted that he was mentally responsible.  The
evaluating psychologist stated that the applicant had depressive symptoms
and expressed somatic complaints.  She states that he also had compulsive,
histrionic and narcissistic personality traits and had been prescribed an
anti-depressant on 28 October 1996.  She stated that the applicant was fit
for duty and had no significant mental defect, which would impair his
ability to participate in administrative proceedings.

10.  At some point court-martial charges were apparently initiated charging
the applicant with two counts of AWOL (absent without leave) from 19
September until 9 October 1996 and between 4 and 5 November 1996.  He was
also charged with two counts of failing to obey a lawful order which
stemmed from his failure to report to “CPT G” twice on 5 November 1996.

11.  An Article 32 investigation and hearing recommended that the court-
martial charges be disposed of under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice and that administrative separation action be initiated
against the applicant.

12.  During the Article 32 investigation and hearing, Dr. R, the clinical
psychologist who saw the applicant on several occasions and who was serving
as the Chief, Behavioral Medicine Clinic, related that in addition to the
somatic symptoms as well as depressive symptoms, the applicant also had an
overlay of personality disorders to include narcissistic traits, histrionic
traits, and excessive compulsive traits.  She explained the characteristics
of the traits and their impact on the applicant’s behavior.  She stated
that she did not believe that the applicant was “intentionally malingering”
or “feigning any of his symptoms.”  She stated that she believed that the
applicant “literally experiences them” but with his “Axis II overlay he
makes too much of them and so it affects his functioning on a day to day
basis to the point he can’t concentrate on other things.”  She stated that
the applicant had very little insight, and that “this is not the place for
him, in the military…so I would probably recommend administrative
discharge.”

13.  On 5 March 1997 the applicant was punished under Article 15 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice for two counts of AWOL (19 September-5
October 1996 and 4-5 November 1996) and two counts of failing to obey a
lawful command.  His punishment included a written reprimand and
restriction to the limits of Fort Knox for 30 days.  The applicant did not
appeal.

14.  On 20 March 1997 a physical examination was completed which found the
applicant medically qualified for separation.

15.  On 21 March 1997 the applicant was admitted to a Department of
Veterans Affairs Hospital as a transfer from Fort Knox as a result of “what
appears to be a psychotic episode.”  The summary document noted that the
applicant’s “psychosis cleared almost immediately on the day of admission
and he had no further problems throughout his stay.”  He was discharged on
26 March 1997.

16.  On 10 April 1997 an elimination action was initiated against the
applicant for acts of personal misconduct.  His two counts of AWOL and
disobeying a lawful command and record of proceedings under Article 15 of
the Uniform Code of Military Justice were cited as the basis for the
recommendation.  The initiating officer indicated that he was recommending
discharge under other than honorable conditions.  The applicant was given
30 days to submit his resignation in lieu of elimination, submit a rebuttal
statement, and/or request appearance before a Board of Inquiry.

17.  On 30 May 1997 the applicant submitted his request for resignation in
lieu of elimination and indicated that he understood that if his voluntary
resignation was accepted he could be required to reimburse the United
States Government for funds expended for his advanced education programs.
He asked that he be considered for an honorable or general discharge
because if he were required to repay his educational expenses he would need
to secure employment promptly after his separation and a discharge
characterization of less than honorable could present considerable
obstacles.

18.  The applicant’s request was approved and on 7 August 1997 he was
discharged under honorable conditions.  In the approval of his resignation,
he was advised that he would be subject to recoupment of his ROTC
Scholarship prorated for that portion of the cost not satisfied by active
service.

19.  There was no indication of any medical treatment in available files
between the date the applicant was released from the hospital in March 1997
and his discharge in August 1997.

20.  Documents provided by the applicant indicate that he was hospitalized
for a second psychotic break necessitating a 5 day hospitalization in
February 1998, began receiving disability benefits from the Social Security
Administration in February 1999, and in June 2002 received a 70 percent
disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs for
Schizoaffective Disorder.  The Department of Veterans Affairs, however,
granted entitlement to the 100 percent rate effective
4 June 2002 because he was unable to work due to his service connected
disability.

21.  Title 10, USC, Section 2005 states that the Secretary concerned may
require a person to reimburse the United States in an amount that bears the
same ratio to the total cost of advanced education if that person,
voluntarily or because of misconduct, fails to complete the period of
active duty specified in his written agreement.  The term “advanced
education” means education or training above the secondary school level but
does not include technical training provided to a member to qualify to
perform a specified military function, to workshops, or to short-term
training programs.  Section 2005(h) states at any time before
1 October 1998 the Secretary may modify an agreement to reduce the active
duty obligation if it is the best interests of the United States to do so.

22.  Army Regulation 600-8-24, which established the policies and provision
for the separation of military officers states that normally an officer
will receive an “Under Other Than Honorable Conditions” discharge when he
or she is involuntarily separated due to misconduct.  A separation under
honorable conditions is normally appropriate when an officer submits an
unqualified resignation under circumstances involving misconduct.

23.  Army Regulation 600-8-24 also states that elimination action may or
will be initiated upon the discovery of any other condition concerning a
probationary officer that indicates that the officer’s retention in the
Army would not be in the best interest of the United States Army.  A
probationary officer is defined as a Regular Army commissioned officer with
less than 5 years commissioned service or a USAR office with less than 3
years of commissioned service.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence available to the Board clearly indicates that the
applicant’s behavior after reporting to Fort Knox, Kentucky, in September
1996 was bizarre at best.  He had managed to get through all of his
previous ROTC training, including airborne training, in addition to the
rigors of a Princeton University educational program.

2.  The evidence also indicates that a clinical psychologist concluded that
the applicant did suffer from personality disorders, that he was not a good
candidate for continued military service, and that she would recommend
administrative separation.

3.  It is understandable, however, that his superiors at OBC might question
his motivation or basis for his bizarre behavior considering the complete
lack of any previous problems and as such, tend not to “believe” the
applicant and presume he was attempting to get out of his military
obligation.  As such, the chain of command pursued elimination action based
on the applicant’s misconduct only after that same clinical psychologist
stated that the applicant was able to distinguish right from wrong.

4.  The Board cannot fault the decisions of the applicant’s chain of
command that acted based on their best judgments, information provided by
members of the medical community, and the actions and statements of the
applicant himself.  There is no indication that in the submission of the
applicant’s voluntary request for resignation that he was unaware of the
ramifications of that request or that he was under any pressure to submit
the request.

5.  However, while the applicant’s voluntary request for resignation was
handled appropriately, without evidence of any error or injustice, the fact
remains that now, more than 7 years later, the applicant’s condition is
such that he is unable to work and has been declared disabled by both the
Social Security Administration and by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Surely that is evidence that the applicant was not feigning his problems in
1996 solely to get out of his military obligation as members of his chain
of command may have initially believed.

6.  As such, in the interest of equity and compassion it would be
appropriate to correct the applicant’s records by showing that upon
approval of his voluntary resignation he was deemed to have satisfied his
written agreement concerning his military service and as such was not
obligated to reimburse the government for the prorated portion of his ROTC
scholarship debt by reducing his active duty service obligation to the
period he served.







BOARD VOTE:

___FE __  ___PS  __  ___SS __  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant
a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all
Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by
showing that upon approval of his voluntary resignation he was deemed to
have satisfied his written agreement concerning his military service and as
such was not obligated to reimburse the government for the prorated portion
of his ROTC scholarship debt by reducing his active duty service obligation
to the period he served.




                                  ______Fred Eichorn________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004105089                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20041221                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |128.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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