RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        JANUARY 27, 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004107030


      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. Raymond J. Wager              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast         |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Brenda K. Koch                |     |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 reason and authority for his discharge
be changed to indicate that he was medically discharged.

2.  The applicant states that the Army knew that he had a problem when they
discharged him and he should have been processed for a discharge through
medical channels.

3.  The applicant provides in support of his application a copy of his
Report of Transfer or Discharge (DD Form 214); a copy of an altered rating
decision from the Veterans Administration (VA); a copy of a Compensation
and Pension Master Record Rating Data printout from the VA; a list of VA
diagnostic codes; and one page of his Army medical records.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or
injustice, which occurred on 1 October 1971.  The application submitted in
this case is dated 6 April 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 limitation 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.  On 20 February 1969, he enlisted in the Army in Oakland, California,
for 3 years, in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed his
training as an automotive repair parts specialist.

4.  The applicant’s conduct and efficiency ratings were excellent and he
was advanced to the pay grade of E-2 on 25 April 1969; to the pay grade of
E-3 on 10 July 1969; and to the pay grade of E-4 on 11 July 1969.

5.  On 12 July 1969, the applicant was transferred to Vietnam.  While in
Vietnam, he was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 22 July 1970.  He
returned to the Continental United States on 23 February 1971.

6.  The available records show that the applicant was evaluated at Madigan
General Hospital on 7 July 1971 and he was diagnosed as having chronic
depression as a result of his desire for an early separation from the Army,
due to being recently married and away from his wife.

7.  On 24 September 1971, the applicant submitted a request for early
separation from the Army for the purpose of attending a vocational high and
technical institute.  The appropriate authority approved the request for
early separation on 27 September 1971.  Accordingly, on 1 October 1971, he
was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-
20 and Department of the Army Message 021220Z Sep 71, (School Release).  He
had completed 2 years, 7 months and 12 days of total active service and he
was furnished an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

8.  Although altered and undated, the VA Rating Decision and associated
documents that the applicant submitted on behalf of his request shows that
he was awarded a 70 percent disability rating from the VA for
schizoaffective disorder.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-20, then in effect, provided for
early separation of enlisted personnel to attend school or to accept
teaching positions. It states, in pertinent part, that enlisted personnel
may be discharged, released from active duty or active duty for training
for the convenience of the Government in order to enter or return to school
or to accept teaching positions when there services are not essential to
the mission of their assigned organization.

10.  Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 2-2b, as amended, 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.

11.  Title 38, United States Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permits the VA
to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or
aggravated by active military service.  The VA, however, is not required by
law to determine medical unfitness for further military service.  The VA,
in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation
solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical
condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the
individual concerned.  Consequently, due to the two


concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not
considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of
processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to
qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that
agency.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in
compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural
errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were
appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted.  However, there is no
evidence in the available record nor has the applicant submitted any
evidence to support his contention that he should have been processed for
discharge through medical channels or that he had a condition that rendered
him unfit while he was in the Army.

4.  The evidence of record shows that while he was in the Army he was
diagnosed as having chronic depression as a result of his desire for an
early separation from the Army, due to being recently married and away from
his wife. He submitted his request for an early separation to attend
school; his request was granted and he was separated accordingly.  The fact
that he is currently being compensated by the VA for a schizoaffective
disorder is not a sufficient basis for granting the relief requested.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy this requirement.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 1 October 1971; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 30 September 1974.  However, 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

elp_____  bkk _____  rjw_____  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.




                                  ___Raymond J. Wagner__
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004107030                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050127                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19711001                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |CHAPTER 5-20/SCHOOL RELEASE             |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  177  |108.0000.0000/DISABILITY SEPARATION     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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