RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        14 November 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060005825


      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. Yvonne Foskey                 |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Curtis Greenway               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas M. Ray                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Peguine M. Taylor             |     |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, that his honorable discharge of 29
February 1984 be changed to a medical discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that for the past year he has been
seen by a doctor at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Hospital in
Dublin, Georgia, who has stated that he is not a paranoid schizophrenic.
He stated that for the past 20 years, he has walked with this dark shadow
over his head thinking he had a mental illness.  However, due to the help
of his current doctor he now knows that he does not suffer from any mental
illness.  He further states that he requests his discharge under the
provisions of Chapter 5, for personality disorder, be changed to a medical
discharge.

3.  The applicant provides a Self-Authored Letter and a copy of his
Separation Document (DD Form 214) in support of his application:

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 29 February 1984.  The application submitted in this case
is dated 11 April 2006.

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.  The applicant’s record shows he initially enlisted into the Regular
Army (RA) and entered active duty on 20 March 1979.  He served on active
duty for a period of 3 years until being honorably released from active
duty on 19 March 1982.

4.  On 4 January 1983, the applicant reenlisted into the RA and continually
served until being honorably separated on 29 February 1984, under the
provisions of Paragraph 5-13, Army Regulation 635-200, for personality
disorder.
5.  The applicant’s Military Personnel Records Jacket (MPRJ) is void of any
medical treatment records that show he suffered from a disabling medical or
mental condition that rendered him unfit for further service at the time of
his separation processing.

6.  In November 1983, the applicant underwent a mental health evaluation.
The examining psychiatrist diagnosed him as abusing alcohol, and
schizotypal personality disorder paranoid-like, depressive features.  He
stated that the applicant experienced visual hallucinations prior to and
during military service, confusion, paranoid.  He further stated that the
applicant's problem would not respond to command efforts at rehabilitation
such as disciplinary actions, reclassification or to any treatment methods
available in any military mental health facility.  He concluded the
applicant was competent and could distinguish right from wrong and adhering
to the right, that he was responsible for his actions, and that he
possessed the mental and emotional capacity to understand and participate
in a board, or other legal proceedings.  The psychiatrist recommended
consideration be given for the applicant's separation from the military.

7.  On 4 January 1984, the applicant’s unit commander notified him that he
was contemplating action to separate him under the provisions of paragraph
5-13a, Army Regulation 635-200 based on his diagnosed personality disorder.


8.  On 11 January 1984, the applicant was advised of the basis for the
contemplated separation action, its effects, and of the rights available to
him.  He completed a statement electing to submit statements in his own
behalf and requested representation by counsel.  In his statement, he
indicated that he had never been in any trouble, nor had he received
counseling statements or Article 15's.  He stated that he had a good and
clean record and the only problem he had was a conflict with dealing with
alcohol.  He states that he had been attending Alcohol and Drug Counseling
for a year, which helped correct his alcohol problem.  He also stated that
his spouse was very ill and he attempted to be reassigned close to home but
failed.  Due to his family problems he began to worry and started having
terrible nightmares and bad dreams, and instead of turning to alcohol he
went to the Mental Hygiene for help.  He further stated that he no longer
had any problems and wanted to remain in the military.
9.  On 7 February 1984, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
separation under the provisions of paragraph 5-13, Army Regulation 635-200
due to a personality disorder, and directed that the applicant receive an
honorable discharge.  On 29 February 1984, the applicant was discharged
accordingly.  The DD Form 214 he was issued upon his separation shows he
was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 5-13, AR 635-200, for
personality disorder.  It also shows he completed a total of 4 years, 1
month, and 26 days of creditable active military service.

10.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement,
or Separation) then in effect, established the Army Physical Disability
Evaluation System (PDES) and set forth policies, responsibilities, and
procedures that applied 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.

11.  Chapter 3 of the same regulation provides guidance on presumptions of
fitness.  It states that 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.  Separation by reason of disability requires processing
through the PDES.

12.  Chapter 4 of the same regulation further states that the PEB evaluates
all cases of physical disability equitably for the Soldier and the Army.
The PEB investigates the nature, cause, degree of severity, and probable
permanency of the disability of Soldiers whose cases are referred to the
board.  It also evaluates the physical condition of the Soldier against the
physical requirements of the soldier's particular office, grade, rank, or
rating.  Finally, it makes findings and recommendations required by law to
establish the eligibility of a Soldier to be separated or retired because
of physical disability.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that he should have received a medical
discharge and the supporting documents were carefully considered.  However,
the evidence of record is void of any medical evidence that suggests the
applicant suffered from a physically disabling condition that rendered him
unfit to perform his military duties, or that would have warranted his
processing through the Army’s PDES at the time of his discharge.

2.  Further, a VA diagnosis or rating award does not establish entitlement
to a medical discharge/retirement.  Operating under its own policies and
regulations, the VA awards ratings because a medical condition is related
to service, i.e., service-connected.  In this case, the applicant is
properly being evaluated and treated for his service connected medical
conditions by the VA.  However, a VA diagnosis at this late date does not
call into question the personality disorder diagnosis properly rendered by
appropriate military medical officials at the time of his separation
processing.

3.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant's separation processing
was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All
requirements of law and regulation were met, and his rights were fully
protected throughout the separation process.

4.  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 evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 29 February 1984.  Therefore, the time
for him to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired
on 28 February 1987.  He failed to 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

__CG___  ___TMR _  __PMT __  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.




                                  _____Curtis Greenway_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060005825                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/11/14                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1984/02/29                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200 . . . . .                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Chapter 5, personality disorder         |
|BOARD DECISION          |Deny                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |110                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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