RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            20 SEPTEMBER 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20040005774


      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. Deyon D. Battle               |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James Hise                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas O’Shaughnessy          |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Patrick McGann                |     |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 the narrative reason for separation
currently reflected on his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty (DD Form 214) be changed from Secretarial Authority to show that he
was discharged by reason of physical disability and placed on the Temporary
Disability Retired List in the pay grade of E-2.  He also requests
reimbursement of his medical treatment expenses.

2.  The applicant states that the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB)
determined that his discharge was inequitable and that his disability was
incurred while in the service.  He states that he was being treated at the
Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) for his disability while he was on
excess leave.  He further states that denial of medical treatment resulted
in his being homeless.

3.  The applicant provides in support of his application an undated copy of
a statement that he has addressed "To who it may concern"; a letter from a
Veterans Service Officer, addressed to the American Legion dated 8 October
2003; a letter from the DVA dated 9 September 2003, informing him that he
was not entitled to VA benefits; discharge orders dated 12 June 2001; a
letter from a DVA doctor dated 15 May 2000, notifying the United States
Army Control Facility in Fort Knox, Kentucky, of his psychiatric
conditions; electronic correspondence that was created on 10 August 2000,
at the VA Medical Center (VAMC) and addressed the Mental Health Staff
regarding his not being eligible for treatment; a letter from his aunt
written to a congressman dated 15 August 2000, attesting to his behavior
before and after he was on active duty; a request for excess leave dated 23
March 2000; a copy of his Report of Medical History and Report of Medical
Examination dated 17 March 2000; a DVA Statement in Support of Claim dated
3 July 2001; a DVA Application for Compensation or Pension dated 2 July
2001; copies of his hospital progress notes; and a copy of
Multidisciplinary Admission Assessment from Comprehensive NeuroScience,
Incorporated dated 19 July 2004.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests that the applicant's narrative reason for separation
be changed to show that he was discharged by reason of physical disability;
that his rank be restored to private (E-2); that he receive credit towards
the costs that he incurred as a result of being treated by the VA; that he
receive credit for unused leave he accrued prior to the date of his
separation; that the Article 15 be removed from his record; and that he be
reimbursed for the pay that was forfeited as a result of the Article 15.
2.  Counsel states that the evidence of records indicates that the
applicant was treated for paranoid schizophrenia and was prescribed various
medications of progressively increasing dosage and effect.  Counsel states
that all of the professional medical opinions indicate that the initial
onset of the applicant's symptoms of schizophrenia occurred while he was on
active duty.  Counsel contends that there is extensive evidence that the
petitioner was treated for schizophrenia at the VAMC, Los Angeles and the
VAMC Palo Alto while he was on voluntary excess leave and that the VAMC,
Los Angeles wrote to the Department of the Army as early as 15 May 2000,
indicating that the applicant was an inpatient on the psychiatric ward.
Counsel states that the letter indicates that applicant was being treated
for schizophrenia, suffering from auditory hallucinations, delusions and
paranoia.  Counsel states that, according to a Veterans Service Office
representative, training for recognition of psychological mental disorders
contained in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-IV or prior editions is
not part of regular military training.  Counsel goes on to quote specific
paragraph in Army Regulation 635-40; Army Regulation 40-3; Army Regulation
40-501; and DSM-IV.  Counsel concludes by stating that since the ADRB could
not disassociate the applicant's psychotic disorder from his active duty
service, relief should be granted in this case

3.  Counsel provides no additional documentation in support of the
applicant's request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  After initially being disqualified for enlistment due to a foot
condition, the applicant applied for and was granted a medical waiver for
enlistment in the Army.  Accordingly, on 8 April 1999, he enlisted in the
Army in Sacramento, California, for 4 years, in the pay grade of E-1 and he
successfully completed his training as an administrative specialist.  He
was advanced to the pay grade of
E-2 on 8 October 1999.

2.  On 9 March 2000, the applicant underwent a command referred mental
status evaluation.  At the time of his evaluation, the attending
psychiatrist indicated that the applicant displayed no evidence of mental
defect; emotional illness; or psychiatric disorder of sufficient severity
to warrant disposition through military medical channels.  The psychiatrist
indicated that the applicant was mentally responsible for his behavior;
could distinguish right from wrong; and possessed sufficient mental
capacity to participate intelligently in any type of proceedings.  He was
psychiatrically cleared for any administrative actions deemed appropriate
by the command.

3.  On 15 March 2000, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the
applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 2 January until
4 January 2000 and from 7 February until 29 February 2000.  His punishment
consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and a forfeiture of pay in
the amount of $503.00.

4.  The applicant underwent a medical examination on 17 March 2000, for the
purpose of discharge from the Army, under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 14.  Although there were no official medical records
available at the time of his medical examination, he was found to be
qualified for discharge.

5.  On 23 March 2000, the applicant was notified by his commanding officer
(CO) that he was being recommended for separation from the Army under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, based on
the commission of serious offenses.  The commander cited the applicant's
two periods of AWOL as a basis for the separation recommendation.

6.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification on 23 March
2000.  After consulting with counsel, he opted not to submit a statement in
his own behalf and he was placed on excess leave from 23 March 2000 to an
indefinite period of time.  On the Request and Authority for Leave form
that he signed, he indicated that he understood that if he incurred a
physical disability while on excess leave, he would not be entitled to
disability retired pay.

7.  Medical record progress notes indicate that the applicant was admitted
for psychiatric impatient treatment at the Greater Los Angeles Healthcare
System on 20 April 2000 and that he was diagnosed with schizophrenia,
paranoid type and polysubstance and alcohol abuse.

8.  In a letter addressed to the applicant's commanding officer dated
15 May 2000, a medical doctor located at the VAMC, Los Angeles, California,
notified the applicant's CO that the applicant was at the West Los Angeles
VAMC and was currently an inpatient on the psychiatric ward where he was
being treated for schizophrenia.  The doctor stated he was suffering from
auditory hallucination, delusions and paranoia and that he reported
experiencing his symptoms while he was in the Army.  The applicant's doctor
and treatment team opined that his paranoid and delusional state was
instrumental in his going AWOL and that his psychotic state was affecting
his behavior.  The doctor stated that extensive discussions with the
applicant's mother and aunt disclosed that he was not suffering from a
psychiatric illness prior to enlisting in the Army and that the onset


of symptoms was while he was in the Army.  The doctor requested that the
applicant be considered for service connected benefits and that her opinion
be taken into consideration when deciding the type of discharge that the
applicant would receive.

9.  In electronic correspondence dated 10 August 2000, the WAMC Mental
Health Staff was notified that the applicant was not eligible for treatment
and that he would receive a bill for the treatment that he received.  The
correspondence indicates that the applicant's discharge from the Army was
pending and that he was on an appellate leave and appealing his situation.
The Mental Health Staff was provided with a list of places to refer the
applicant.

10.  In a letter addressed to a congressman dated 15 August 2000, the
applicant's aunt stated that when she picked him up from a family member's
house on 13 April 2000, she instantly knew that there was something wrong.
She stated that he was showing signs of paranoia; confusion; hearing voices
and he was clammy to the touch.  She stated that the applicant told her
that he had been dishonorably discharged and that he felt depressed.  She
stated that he went on to explain how while he was in the Army, mind
control was forced upon him and that his superiors had tapped into his mind
and could hear his thoughts.  In the letter, the applicant's aunt stated
that when she asked him why he was self-medicating so much, he said that it
helped him relax and it stopped the voices.  She stated that he was not the
same person that she had seen 1-year prior.  She stated that she got him to
agree to go to the hospital and that he was immediately admitted.  She
states that she was later informed that he had not been discharged and that
he was on appellate leave and had 120 days of benefits from the date of his
release (23 March 2000).  She states that after many tests he was diagnosed
as schizophrenic and that now he is responsible for nearly $40,000.00.

11.  In the letter dated 15 August 2000, the applicant's aunt stated that
letters from the VA hospital were sent to Fort Benning, Georgia; however,
there was no response until 11 August 2000, when officials informed her
that the applicant should report to the nearest military hospital.  She
stated that the nearest base hospital is located in San Diego, California,
which is over 100 miles away and that he had no funds.  She stated that she
felt exhausted from the whole ordeal and that it sounded like the military
was trying to build their case to dishonorably discharge her nephew leaving
him with a debilitating mental disease which would remain with him for the
rest of his life and cause him to have to depend on state resources.  In
the letter she asked, in effect, that her congressman intervene in the
applicant's behalf and insure that he be medically discharged.

12.  The VA hospital notes show that the applicant was admitted to the VA
hospital on 13 March 2001 and that he was diagnosed with schizophrenia,
paranoid type and alcohol abuse.  During this admission, the applicant
informed the psychiatrist that he first began to experience psychiatric
difficulties while he was in the Army and that he began to see a
psychiatrist at Fort Benning, Georgia, for help with feeling that his
friends had changed; hearing voices; thought insertion; thinking that
people were trying to kill him; and for having ideas of reference.  He was
medicated and discharged against medical advice on 16 March 2001.

13.  He was admitted to the VA hospital again on 23 March 2001 and
diagnosed with schizophrenia, paranoid type and alcohol dependence.  While
hospitalized, he described hearing voices through his television and radio
signals and visual hallucinations.  He described that the government was
watching him and keeping records on him.  He was medicated and discharged
against medical advice on 30 March 2001.

14.  On 3 April 2001, the applicant's CO forwarded through his chain of
command a recommendation for his discharge under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, due to misconduct, based on his commission
of a serious offense.  The CO cited the applicant's two periods of AWOL and
punishment under Article 15, as a basis for his recommendation for
discharge.

15.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on
20 May 2001.  Accordingly, on 6 June 2001, the applicant was discharge,
under other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army
Regulation
635-200, chapter 14, due to misconduct.  He had completed 2 years, 1 month
and 16 days of net active service and he had approximately 25 days of lost
time due to AWOL.

16.  According to a Multidisciplinary Admission Assessment that was
completed by Comprehensive NeuroScience, Incorporated, the applicant was
hospitalized at the psychiatric Institute of Washington on 17 June 2004,
for chronic paranoid schizophrenia with paranoid delusional thought content
and ideas of reference.

17.  On 19 July 2004, the ADRB upgraded the applicant's discharge to fully
honorable and changed his narrative reason for separation to Secretarial
Authority.  During the review, that board noted that there was sufficient
evidence to indicate that the applicant was seen and treated for a mental
disorder while he was on active duty.  The ADRB was unable to disassociate
his mental disorder from his period on active duty.

18.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement,
or Separation) provides, in pertinent part that when a commander believes
that a soldier of his or her command is unable to perform the duties of his
or her office, grade, rank, or rating because of physical disability, the
commander will refer the soldier to the responsible Medical Treatment
Facility (MTF) for evaluation.  The request for evaluation will be in
writing and will state the commander’s reasons for believing that the
soldier is unable to perform his or her duties.

19.  Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3, provides standards for medical
retention.  Basically, members with conditions as severe as listed in this
chapter are considered medically unfit for retention on active duty.

20.  Army Regulation 600-8-10 prescribes the policies and mandated
operating tasks for the leave and pass function of the Military Personnel
System.  It provides, in pertinent part, that Soldiers who incur a physical
disability while in an excess leave status are not entitled to receive
disability retired pay under sections 502, 503, title 37, United States
Code (USC) and section 706(b)(2), title 10, USC.  This regulation also
provides that excess leave is without pay and allowances.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The medical evidence of record indicates that the applicant was
medically fit for retention at the time of his separation.  Neither the
applicant nor counsel has submitted any sufficient medical evidence to the
contrary.

2.  He was on active duty from 8 April 1999 until 18 June 2001.  Service
medical records do not indicate any medical condition incurred while
entitled to receive basic pay that was so severe as to render the applicant
medically unfit for retention on active duty.  At the time of his
separation, a mental status evaluation and physical examination were
completed by competent medical authorities who determined that he was
mentally and physically fit for retention or appropriate separation.
Accordingly, the applicant was separated from active duty for reasons other
than physical disability.

3.  The contention made by the applicant and his counsel has been noted as
well as the latter medical documentation provided by what appears to be
competent medical authorities.  However, the applicant did not have any
medically unfitting disability which required physical disability
processing.  Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability
retirement.


4.  On the Request and Authority for Leave form that he signed, he
indicated that he understood that if he incurred a physical disability
while on excess leave, he would not be entitled to disability retired pay.
Based on the Mental Status Evaluation and the physical evaluation that the
applicant underwent prior to his discharge, he was on excess leave for
almost 30 days before he was admitted to the hospital.  Therefore, in
accordance with the applicable regulation, he was then and is now
ineligible for disability retirement.

5.  The applicant's and his counsel's contentions regarding credit toward
costs incurred as a result of his being treated by the VA has been noted.
However, the VA is a separate agency that operates under it's own
regulations and policies.  This portion of his request does not fall within
the purview of this Board; therefore, the applicant must exhaust this issue
through the VA appeals process.

6.  The applicant's request that he be given credit for unused leave that
he earned up until the date of his separation has been considered.
However, he was placed on excess leave and any leave that he may have
earned was compiled into the number of days he had to expend prior to
discharge, which would have left him with no leave.  Accordingly, he is not
entitled to credit for unused leave.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JH___  ___TO __  ___PM__  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 for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.



                                  ______James Hise________________
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040005774                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/09/20                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |2001/06/18                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |CHAPTER 5/SECRETARIAL AUTHORITY         |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  995  |145.0000/PHYSICAL DISABILITY            |
|2.  1001                |145.0600/ADMIN DISCHARGE PENDING        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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