RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        19 OCTOBER 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050002930


      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. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Barbara Ellis                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Hubert Fry                    |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Robert Rogers                 |     |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, disability retirement or separation
and that his uniform be restored.

2.  The applicant states that although he received an honorable discharge
he now believes he should have been discharged for medical reasons.  He
states he continues to suffer from a medical condition (NSU - non-specific
urethritis) which he developed while in the Army and was not compensated
for the illness.

3.  He states he did not find out about the condition until nearly 35 years
after his discharge although he was hospitalized with VD (venereal disease)
like symptoms which were subsequently diagnosed as NSU.  He states he
believed he was being treated for VD and was never told about the NSU
although he continued to experience the same symptoms.  He states he did
not want to get in trouble so he kept quiet about his symptoms.  He argues
that he became unfit to be a Soldier when the NSU condition developed.  He
notes he has been receiving disability benefits for the condition from the
Department of Veterans Affairs since 2001.

4.  He states that because of his medical condition he began to fall behind
the other Soldiers, was eventually picked on by others, and ended up being
hospitalized for mental problems.  He states he was then given several
medications, including Librium.  The applicant states that he was taking
Librium at the time of his discharge and was incapable of asking questions
which might have protected him.  He believes he may have been taking an
overdose most of the time and hardly knew that he was being discharged.  He
states he had no representation of any kind at the time and was bullied
into being discharged.

5.  The applicant states that his uniform was taken from him at the time of
his discharge which he believes may have been standard procedure.  He
states that because he now has an honorable discharge he is probably
qualified to wear the Army uniform but does not have one.

6.  The applicant provides no evidence in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 10 September 1964.  The application submitted in this
case is dated 17 February 2005.

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 limitations 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.  Records available to the Board indicate the applicant entered active
duty on 17 January 1964 and successfully completed basic and advanced
individual training.  In June 1964 he was assigned to an engineer battalion
at Fort Lewis, Washington.

4.  According to an evaluation conducted by the Chief, Psychiatric Service
at Madigan General Hospital, the applicant was admitted to the hospital on
20 July 1964 with a tentative diagnosis of NP (neuropsych) observation.
The evaluating physician noted that the applicant had been seen in the
mental hygiene clinic at Fort Lewis on 15 July 1964 and again on 20 July
1964 when it was advised that he be admitted to the hospital for
observation.  He had originally been referred to the mental health clinic
after several occasions of fainting.  Each fainting episode occurred in the
evening.

5.  The evaluating physician noted that routine laboratory workup was
within normal limits, and his physical examination revealed no evidence of
physical pathology.  He was diagnosed as schizoid personality, chronic,
severe, manifested by paranoid ideation, inappropriate affect, difficulty
relating to people. He stated the applicant had no mental or physical
disease or defect which warranted disposition via medical channel.  The
condition was determined to have existed prior to his entry on active duty
and his separation for unsuitability was recommended.

6.  On 21 August 1964 the applicant's unit commander initiated action to
administratively discharge the applicant from active duty under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 for unsuitability.  He recommended
the applicant be given a general discharge in spite of noting the
applicant's conduct was excellent and his efficiency satisfactory.  The
applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation action and waived
his attendant rights, including his right to counsel.



7.  The recommendation was approved and on 10 September 1964 the applicant
was discharged under honorable conditions and issued a general discharge
certificate.  In 1998 this Board upgraded the applicant's characterization
of service to fully honorable.

8.  Other than the evaluation from the Chief, Psychiatric Service, there
were no other medical records available to the Board or provided by the
applicant.

9.  Army Regulation 635-209, in effect at the time, set forth the policy
and prescribed procedures for eliminating enlisted personnel for
unsuitability.  Action was to be taken to discharge an individual for
unsuitability when, in the commander's opinion, it was clearly established
that: the individual was unlikely to develop sufficiently to participate in
further military training and/or become a satisfactory soldier or the
individual's psychiatric or physical condition was such as to not warrant
discharge for disability.  Unsuitability included inaptitude, character and
behavior disorders, disorders of intelligence and transient personality
disorders due to acute or special stress, apathy, defective attitude, and
inability to expend effort constructively, enuresis, chronic alcoholism,
and homosexuality.  Evaluation by a medical officer was required and, when
psychiatric indications were involved, the medical officer must have been a
psychiatrist, if one was available.

10.  Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the policies and provisions for the
Army Physical Disability Evaluation System and sets forth policies,
responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a
Solider is unfit because of physical disability.  It states that disability
compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred
illness or injury; rather, it is provided to Soldiers whose service is
interrupted and they can no longer continue to reasonably perform because
of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service.

11.  It also states, in pertinent part, that commanders of medical
treatment facilities who are treating Soldiers may initiate action to
evaluate the Soldier’s physical ability to perform the duties of his or her
office, grade, rank, or rating.  It also states 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 may refer the Soldier to the responsible medical
treatment facility for evaluation.

12.  Title 38, United States Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permit the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to award compensation for disabilities
which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  However,
an award of a VA rating does not establish error or injustice in the basis
for a Soldier’s discharge from the Army.  Army disability ratings are
intended to compensate an individual for interruption of a military career
after it has been determined that the individual suffers from an impairment
that disqualifies him or her from further military service.  The VA, which
has neither the authority, nor the responsibility for determining physical
fitness for military service, awards disability ratings to veterans for
conditions that it determines were incurred during military service and
subsequently affect the individual’s civilian employability.  Furthermore,
unlike the Army, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her
lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency’s
examinations and findings.  The Army rates only conditions determined to be
physically unfitting at the time of discharge, thus compensating the
individual for loss of a career; while the VA may rate any service
connected impairment, including those that are detected after discharge, in
order to compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability.

13.  Army Regulation 670-1 states that former members of the Army may wear
the Army uniform if they served honorably during a declared or undeclared
war, and if their most recent service was terminated under honorable
conditions.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that he is entitled to compensation for a
condition he maintains occurred while he was on active duty is not
supported by any evidence available to the Board.  The evidence which is
available indicates the applicant had no medically unfitting conditions at
the time of his administrative separation which would have warranted
discharge or retirement by reason of physical disability.

2.  The fact that he may now be receiving compensation from the Department
of Veterans Affairs is also not evidence that he should have been
discharged or retired by reason of physical disability.

3.  There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any that he
was incapable of participating in his separation process because of
medication he was taking.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the
applicant’s separation for failing to meet procurement medical fitness
standards is presumed to have been proper and accomplished in compliance
with applicable regulations.

4.  The applicant, even though his service was originally terminated under
honorable conditions would still not be eligible to wear the Army uniform
after his discharge was upgraded to fully honorable, because his period of
military service was not performed during a declared or undeclared war.

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 that requirement.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 10 September 1964; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on
9 September 1967.  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

__BE ___  __HF  ___  __RR ___  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.



                                  ______Barbara Ellis________
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050002930                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051019                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |108.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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