RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          1 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050004446


      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. Wanda L. Waller               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James Anderholm               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas O'Shaughnessy          |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Carol Kornhoff                |     |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 his narrative reason for separation be
changed.

2.  The applicant states his disability existed during active duty service,
not prior to service.  He contends that he is currently rated at 30 percent
service connection for psychosis, schizophrenia, and paranoia.

3.  The applicant provides a medical record, dated 1 March 2005.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 21 August 1996.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 7 April 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 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.  Having prior active and inactive service in the U.S. Marine Corps
Reserve, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 December 1995 for
a period of 3 years.  On or about 21 January 1996, the applicant was
hospitalized after he developed hallucinations and delusions.

4.  On 7 March 1996, the applicant was diagnosed by a Medical Evaluation
Board (MEB) with schizophrenia, paranoid type, episodic with interepisode
residual symptoms, existed prior to service (EPTS).  The MEB recommended
referral to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).  On 30 May 1996, a PEB found
the applicant physically unfit due to schizophrenia, paranoid type,
episodic with interepisode residual symptoms and determined that there was
sufficient evidence to substantiate an EPTS condition and that the
condition was not aggravated by service but the result of natural
progression.  The PEB recommended that the applicant be separated from the
service without disability benefits.  On 21 June 1996, the applicant
concurred with the findings and recommendations and waived a formal
hearing.  On 12 June 1996, the U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency
(USAPDA) approved the recommended findings of the PEB.

5.  The applicant was honorably discharged on 21 August 1996 under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 4-24b(4), for disability,
EPTS.

6.  Item 25 (Separation Authority) on the applicant's DD Form 214
(Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows the entry, "AR
[Army Regulation] 635-40, PARA [paragraph] 4-24B(4)."  Item 26 (Separation
Code) on his DD Form 214 shows the entry, "JFM."  Item 28 (Narrative Reason
for Separation) on his DD Form 214 shows the entry, "DISABILITY, EXISTED
PRIOR TO SERVICE, PEB."

7.  In support of his claim, the applicant provided a medical record, dated

1 March 2005, which shows he was rated 30 percent service connection for
psychosis, schizophrenia, and paranoia.

8.  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.
 In pertinent part, it states 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.

9.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes)
prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other
directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military
service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated
reasons.  The regulation states the reason for discharge based on
separation code “JFM” is “Disability, Existed Prior to Service, Physical
Evaluation Board (PEB)” and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 635-
40, paragraph 4-24b(4).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  According to accepted medical principles, manifestation of symptoms of
chronic disease so close to the date of entry on active military service
that the disease could not have started in so short a period would be
accepted as proof the disease existed prior to entrance into active
military service.

2.  The applicant enlisted on 29 December 1995.  Less than a month later he
was hospitalized after he developed hallucinations and delusions.
According to accepted medical principles, there is sufficient evidence to
show his condition existed prior to his enlistment.

3.  The narrative reason for separation used in the applicant’s case is
correct and was applied in accordance with the applicable regulations.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error now
under consideration on 21 August 1996; therefore, the time for the
applicant to file a request for correction of any error expired on 20
August 1999.  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

JA______  TO_____  CK______  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.

            __James Anderholm_____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050004446                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051101                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.0200                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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