RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           22 September 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050000240


      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:

|     |Mr. James E. Anderholm            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Bernard P. Ingold             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Michael J. Flynn              |     |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
change to the narrative reason for his discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that an incident between his unit
commander and wife resulted in his being unfairly treated by members of his
chain of command.  He indicates that after his wife took exception to
comments made by his commander about their quarters, he could not satisfy
his noncommissioned officers (NCOs) and became target practice.  He further
states that while still recovering from surgery, he was separated with no
medical coverage.  He further claims at the time of his discharge, he was
unaware of his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and was informed he
had no benefits.  He finally states at the time, he believed the Government
was trying to kill him.

3.  The applicant provides a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Letter of
Medical Evidence with associated medical treatment records and supporting
documents 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
AR2004105739, on 26 October 2004.

2.  The applicant’s record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 13 November 1979.  He was trained in, awarded and
served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 76C (Equipment Records and
Parts Specialist), and the highest rank he attained while serving on active
duty was specialist/E-4 (SPC/E-4).

3.  On 13 August 1982, the applicant was honorably discharged under the
provisions of paragraph 5-31h, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of
failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention.

4.  During its original review of the applicant’s case, the Board found his
separation processing was accomplished in compliance with applicable
regulations with no indication of procedural errors that jeopardized his
rights.  It further found the applicant had undergone extensive counseling
for a myriad of conduct and performance related infractions, and he failed
to respond to this counseling.  It finally found there was insufficient
evidence to support his contention that his chain of command was corrupt,
and it concluded the narrative reason for his separation was proper and
equitable.

5.  The applicant provides a VA packet from a New York State VA Senior
Counselor, dated 10 December 2003, that includes documents outlining the
applicant’s PTSD condition and the underlying reasons for his condition.
This official indicated it was his opinion the applicant’s PTSD likely as
not originated, or was aggravated, by an automobile accident in which he
was severely injured while on active duty.  The documents reveal the
applicant was involved in the automobile accident in July 1980.

6.  The applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) contains no
medical treatment records indicating the injuries the applicant suffered as
a result of his automobile accident, or any other conditions he was treated
for while on active duty rendered him medically unfit for further military
service.

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.
 Chapter 3 provides guidance on presumptions of fitness.  It states that
the mere presence of impairment did 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.

8.  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 the reason for his discharge should be
changed because it was unfair, and because he now suffers from a PTSD as a
result of injuries he was not properly treated for while on active duty,
and the supporting VA packet he submitted were carefully considered.
However, these factors provide an insufficient evidentiary basis to support
amending the original decision of the Board.

2.  The VA counselor statement indicating the applicant’s current PTSD
condition, likely as not, originated with, or was aggravated, by the
automobile accident he was involved in while on active duty was also
carefully considered.  However, 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.

3.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was treated for injuries
he received in an automobile accident while on active duty.  However, there
is no medical evidence of record indicating these accident related
injuries, or any other medical conditions he was treated for while on
active rendered him physically or mentally unfit to perform his military
duties at the time of his discharge.  A PTSD diagnostic label given to his
condition now, some 23 years after his separation, does not call into
question the medical findings rendered at the time of the applicant’s
separation.  Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to support this VA
official’s conclusion on this matter.  The applicant is appropriately being
treated for his service connected medical conditions by the VA.

4.  Notwithstanding the new evidence and argument submitted by the
applicant, the evidence or record confirms his separation processing for
his failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention was accomplished
in accordance with the applicable regulations in effect at the time.  All
requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant
were fully protected throughout the separation process.  As a result, the
narrative reason for his discharge was proper and equitable, and there is
an insufficient evidentiary basis to change it at this time.

5.  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

___JEA  _  ___BPI__  __MJF __  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 AR2004105739, on 26 October 2004.




            ____James E. Anderholm_____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050000240                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |AR2004105739                            |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/09/22                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1982/08/13                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Failure to meet retention standards.    |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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