RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           14 December 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040001345


      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. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Jennifer L. Prater            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Lester Echols                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Diane J. Armstrong            |     |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, in effect, reconsideration of his request for a
medical retirement.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that it is unjust for his record to
indicate he was medically fit for duty at the time of his discharge.  He
claims at the time of his separation, he did not meet the fitness standards
and was showing signs of mental disorder.  He claims he was showing signs
of a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and was given a regular
psychiatric examination.  He claims his unit commander did not refer him
for a mental status evaluation and as a result his medical records are
misleading.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement and civilian
psychiatric evaluation in support of his application.

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
AR2002081987, on 25 September 2003.

2.  As outlined by the Board in its original decisional document, the
applicant under went two psychiatric evaluations prior to his separation.
The first on 29 July 1966, was conducted by captain in the Medical Corps,
who was a qualified Psychiatrist.  This evaluation resulted in a diagnosis
of passive aggressive reaction.  However, the examining physician found no
mental defect warranting separation processing through medical channels.

3.  On 9 January 1967, the second psychiatric examination of the applicant
was completed by the Chef, Neuropsychiatric Service (a different doctor
from the one who conducted the first examination).  This examination
resulted in a diagnosis of passive aggressive personality. The examining
physician found no mental or physical defects sufficient to warrant
separation processing through medical channels.

4.  The original Board case summary also noted that the applicant underwent
a separation physical examination on 18 January 1967 and was found
qualified for retention/separation by competent medical authority.

5.  On 6 February 1967, the applicant was separated under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-212, by reason of unsuitability and received a general,
under honorable conditions discharge.

6.  The applicant provides a letter from a civilian doctor, dated 12
February 2003. It indicates the doctor conducted a psychiatric evaluation
of the applicant on
12 November 2002.  The doctor indicates he was asked to evaluate whether
the applicant has a PTSD, and if so, whether the Army was the proximate
cause of the disorder.  The doctor indicated he examined the applicant for
about
20 minutes and in his medical and psychiatric opinion, it is more likely
than not that the applicant experienced his first psychiatric symptoms
while enlisted in the Army, which were early manifestations of a PTSD.  He
commented that the PTSD more likely than not accounted for his subsequent
periods of being absent without leave (AWOL).

7.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement,
or Separation) establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System
(PDES) and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply
in determining whether a soldier is unfit because of physical disability to
reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.


8.  Chapter 3 of the physical evaluation regulation provides guidance on
presumptions of fitness.  It states that the mere presence of impairment
does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical
disability.  In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree
of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the
soldier reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office,
grade, rank, or rating.

9.  PTSD, an anxiety disorder, was recognized as a psychiatric disorder in
1980 with the publishing of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM).  The condition is described in the current DSM-IV, pages
424 through 429.  The Army used established standards and procedures for
determining fitness for entrance and retention and utilized those
procedures and standards in evaluating the applicant at the time of his
discharge.  The specific diagnostic label given to an individual’s
condition a decade or more after his discharge from the service may change,
but any change does not call into question the application of then existing
fitness standards.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contentions that his discharge should be upgraded
because he suffered from a mental condition that impaired his ability to
serve and based on his suffering from a PTSD and the supporting medical
documents he provided were carefully considered.  However, an insufficient
evidentiary basis has been found to support the requested relief.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s separation processing
for unsuitability was accomplished in accordance with the applicable
regulations in effect at the time.  All requirements of law and regulation
were met, the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the
separation process and his discharge accurately reflects his overall record
of service.

3.  By regulation, the mere presence of impairment does not, of itself,
justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability.  In each
case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical
disability present with the requirements of the duties the soldier
reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade,
rank, or rating.  The applicant’s military medical record provides no
indication that he suffered from a physical or mental condition that
rendered him unfit to perform his military duties at the time of his
discharge.

4.  As indicated in the Board’s original conclusions in this case, the
applicant underwent two psychiatric evaluations and a complete physical
examination during his separation processing.  The results of these
examinations confirm he had no mentally or physically disabling condition
that warranted his separation processing through medical channels and he
cleared for separation/retention by competent medical authority.

5.  The doctor’s statement provided by the applicant, in which the
examining physician finds it more than likely the applicant experienced his
first psychiatric symptoms while enlisted in the Army, which were early
manifestations of a PTSD; and that it is more likely than not this
accounted for his subsequent periods of AWOL was carefully considered.
However, this specific diagnostic label given to his condition now, some 35
years after his separation, does not call into question the medical
findings rendered at the time of his separation.  As a result, the evidence
presented by the applicant does not support the requested relief.
6.  As the applicant was informed in the original Board decisional
document, 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 any new evidence or argument that would
satisfy this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__DJA__  __JLP_ __  __LE____  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 AR2002081987, dated 26 September 2003.




            ____Jennifer L. Prater_____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040000567                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |AR2002081987   2003/09/25               |
|DATE BOARDED            |2004/12/14                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1967/02/06                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-212                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Unsuitability                           |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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