RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           9 November 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004106314


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Mark D. Manning               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Linda D. Simmons              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Leonard G. Hassell            |     |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 earlier
requests to change his administrative discharge to a medical separation.

2.  The applicant, in effect, defers to counsel.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel states that the applicant's service and civilian medical
records show he suffered from schizophrenia, paranoid type with severe
psychiatric symptoms first appearing at age 18 or 19.  The conclusion by an
Army psychologist in May 1971, that the applicant had no "mental defects"
at the time of his discharge, was, in retrospect, incorrect.  It must be
corrected in light of the applicant's subsequently discovered and confirmed
schizophrenia.  Similarly, the behaviors that resulted in his discharge
must be reevaluated in light of his subsequently discovered and confirmed
schizophrenia.

2.  Counsel provides the applicant's separation packet; his service medical
records; an Initial Social Assessment from the Northeast Florida State
Hospital dated 27 January 1986; a Comprehensive Social History from the
Northeast Florida State Hospital dated 21 February 1986; a Social History
Update dated    27 May 1986; a Face (sic) Sheet dated 17 December 1985 from
the Northeast Florida State Hospital; an 11 June 1986 letter from the State
of Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services to the Veterans
Administration; and a Psychiatric Evaluation from the Northeast Florida
State Hospital dated      23 January 1986.

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 AC86-
04967 on        9 November 1988 and in Docket Number AC86-04967B on 30
September 1998.

2.  The 11 June 1986 letter provided by the applicant is new evidence which
will be considered by the Board.  In addition, the 27 January 1986 Initial
Social Assessment will be considered in more detail.

3.  The applicant was born on 27 August 1952.  He enlisted in the Regular
Army on 14 January 1971.  On his Standard Form 93 (Report of Medical
History), he reported only that he had a history of broken bones.  For
"Depression or excessive worry," "Nervous trouble of any sort," and "Any
drug or narcotic habit," he checked the "NO" (no history) blocks.

4.  On 1 March 1971, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being absent without leave
(AWOL) from 27 to 28 February 1971 and for disobeying a lawful order by
leaving his rifle unguarded.

5.  Around March 1971, the company commander initiated separation action on
the applicant under Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.  The applicant
was advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated action.  He waived
consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived personal
appearance before such a board, and elected not to make a statement on his
behalf.

6.  A Consultation Sheet dated 11 March 1971 indicates the applicant had a
history of LSD use and flashsbacks.

7.  On 23 March 1971, the applicant completed a separation physical
examination and was found qualified for separation.

8.  In a Unit Commander's Certificate dated 24 April 1971, the applicant's
commander noted that the applicant had no problem with comprehension, no
obesity problem, and no problems performing physically.  His problem was he
had no personal pride and a complete lack of motivation.  Since the first
day he had shown contempt toward all types of authority.  In March 1971, he
had started going on sick call for blackouts.  When counseled by the First
Sergeant, the applicant admitted that he had used drugs for 4 years prior
to induction.  On       17 March 1971, he had been informed of the
command's decision to start board action leading to a discharge.  The
applicant replied that a discharge was what he wanted all along.  The
applicant was telling other trainees how they could get discharges.  On 13
April 1971, the applicant stated he wanted to appear before a board to
appeal the undesirable portion of the discharge.  On 15 April 1971, he told
the First Sergeant that he did not care what type of discharge he received
as long as he received one.

9.  On 10 May 1971, the applicant completed a psychiatric evaluation.  A
major in the Medical Corps (psychiatrist) found no evidence of mental
defects sufficient to warrant a medical separation.  He was found to be
mentally responsible both to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to
the right and to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in
board proceedings.  He was diagnosed with passive aggressivity, chronic,
mild; manifested by manipulative passive aggressive behavior, existing
prior to service (EPTS).  He was psychiatrically clear for any
administrative action deemed appropriate by his command.
10.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed
issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.

11.  On 28 June 1971, the applicant was discharged, with an undesirable
discharge, under other than honorable conditions, in pay grade E-1, under
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.  He had completed
           5 months and 14 days of creditable active service with 1 day of
lost time.

12.  On page 5 of the 27 January 1986 Initial Social Assessment provided by
the applicant, it was noted that the applicant had stated he started to
have mental problems in his late teen years, 18 or 19 years old.  His
girlfriend broke up their relationship and he did not handle it well.  He
began to behave in bizarre and delusional ways and tried to starve himself
to death.  He joined the Army to free himself from the streets and to stop
having nothing to do but think about his girlfriend.

13.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  The regulation
provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of
a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, sexual
perversion, drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit-
forming drugs or marijuana, an established pattern for shirking, an
established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts or
failure to contribute adequate support to dependents, were subject to
separation for unfitness.  Such action would be taken when it was clearly
established that despite attempts to rehabilitate or develop him as a
satisfactory soldier further effort was unlikely to succeed.

14.  Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of
soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of
physical disability.  The unfitness is of such a degree that a soldier is
unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating in such a
way as to reasonably fulfill the purposes of his employment on active duty.
 It states that the mere presence of an impairment does not, of itself,
justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability.

15.  Army Regulation 635-40 states, in pertinent part, that according to
accepted medical principles certain abnormalities and residual conditions
exist that, when discovered, lead to the conclusion that they must have
existed or have started before the individual entered the military service.
 Likewise, manifestation of lesions or symptoms of chronic disease from
date of entry on active military service (or so close to that date of entry
that the disease could not have started in so short a period) will be
accepted as proof that the disease existed prior to entrance into active
military service.
16.  Army Regulation 635-40 also states that when considering EPTS cases
involving aggravation by active service, the rating will reflect only the
degree of disability over and above the degree existing at the time of
entrance into the active service, less natural progression occurring during
active service.  This will apply whether the particular condition was noted
at the time of entrance into active service or is determined upon the
evidence of record or accepted medical principles to have existed at that
time.

17.  Army Regulation 40-501 governs the medical fitness standards for
enlistment, retention, and separation.  The regulation in effect at the
time stated, in pertinent part, that a history of a psychoneurotic reaction
which caused loss of time from normal pursuits for repeated periods even if
of brief duration or symptoms or behavior of a repeated nature which
impaired school or work efficiency was a cause for rejection from
enlistment.

18.  Army Regulation 635-206 (Misconduct, Fraudulent Entry, Conviction by
Civil Court, and Absence without Leave or Desertion), in effect at the
time, provided that the offense of fraudulent enlistment occurred when the
member accepted pay or allowances following enlistment procured by willful
and deliberate false representation or concealment as to his
qualifications.  Individuals who concealed a medical defect upon entry into
service could be considered for discharge for fraudulent entry.  Normally,
an individual discharged under this section would be given an undesirable
discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Counsel's contention that the applicant suffered from schizophrenia at
the time he separated has been carefully considered.

2.  First, there is no evidence to show the applicant was rendered unfit
due to schizophrenia during his service in the Army.  It is presumed he was
examined by competent military medical authorities.  Even if he had been
diagnosed with schizophrenia at the time, there is no evidence to show it
was so severe as to render him unable to distinguish right from wrong.
Merely having an impairment does not justify a finding of unfitness because
of physical disability.

3.  Second, even if the applicant had been diagnosed with schizophrenia,
there is no evidence that it was aggravated by his Army service.  Any
disability rating could only have reflected the degree of disability over
and above the degree existing at the time of entrance into the active
service.  The applicant provided evidence to show he began to behave in
bizarre and delusional ways and tried to starve himself to death prior to
his enlistment.  There is no evidence of record to show he had any
psychoneurotic reaction that severe while he was in the Army. Therefore,
there is no evidence to show that any schizophrenic condition he might have
had was aggravated by Army service.

4.  Third, as noted above, the applicant had a pre-enlistment history of a
psychoneurotic reaction which caused a loss of time from normal pursuits
and caused behavior (starving himself to death) which impaired his life.
That history was a cause for rejection from enlistment yet he failed to
mention it on his Standard Form 93.  By accepting pay following his
enlistment, which appears to have been procured by willful and deliberate
concealment as to his medical qualifications, he could have been considered
for discharge for fraudulent entry.  Normally, an individual discharged for
fraudulent entry would have been given an undesirable discharge, the same
characterization of service he actually did receive.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__mdm___  __lds___  __lgh___  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 AR AC86-04967 on 9 November 1988 and
in Docket Number AC86-04967B on 30 September 1998.




            __Mark D. Manning_____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004106314                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20041109                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1971/06/28                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-212                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |A50.00                                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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