RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        20 March 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060012768


      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. Gerard W. Schwartz            |     |Acting Director      |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Kathleen A. Newman            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. David K. Hassenritter         |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. Douglas            |     |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 the narrative reason for his
discharge be changed from Unsuitability (Personality Disorder) to
Disability (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and that he be granted a
medical retirement.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the narrative reason for his
discharge should be changed based on his diagnosed severe, chronic PTSD
condition.  He claims the Army had an obligation to know, should have known
and/or would have known at the time of his discharge that he was suffering
from a severe chronic PTSD, a condition which he still suffers from today.
He states that had a full and detailed mental evaluation been conducted,
his PTSD would have discovered and diagnosed at the time of his discharge.


3.  The applicant provides a third-party statement from his wife and his
separation document in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 10 August 1982, the date of his discharge.  The
application submitted in this case is dated 17 August 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 that he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 9 January 1969.  He was trained in, awarded, and
served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 67N (Aircraft Parts Clerk),
95B (Military Police), and 72E (Telecommunications Specialist), and the
highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was sergeant (SGT).


4.  The applicant's Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) shows he
completed overseas tours in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN), Korea, and
Germany.  He served in the RVN from 15 July 1969 through 15 August 1971.

5.  The applicant's record confirms that during his active duty tenure, he
earned the following awards:  National Defense Service Medal; Armed Forces
Expeditionary Medal; Silver Star; Air Medal; Army Good Conduct Medal
(2nd Award); RVN Campaign Medal with 60 Device; Vietnam Service Medal with
5 bronze service stars; RVN Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation; Army
Service Ribbon; Overseas Service Ribbon; and Noncommissioned Officer
Professional Development Ribbon.

6.  On 21 April 1982, the unit commander notified the applicant he was
considering separating the applicant under the provisions of chapter 13,
Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of Unsuitability (Personality Disorder).


7.  On 29 April 1982, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was
advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, its effects,
and of the rights available to him.  Subsequent to this counseling, the
applicant requested consideration of and personal appearance before a board
of officers and representation by counsel.

8.  On 16 July 1982, a board of officers convened at Fort Carson, Colorado,
to consider the applicant's case.  The applicant appeared before the board
with his civilian counsel and assigned military counsel.  Included in the
documents submitted to the board of officers by the recorder were medical
board proceedings, dated 11 August 1980, a mental status evaluation
completed on the applicant, dated 26 March 1982.  The first witness called
before the board of officers was the Chief, Department of Psychiatry and
Community Mental Health Activities, a colonel psychiatrist, who testified
that the applicant was diagnosed with an unspecified personality disorder
and that he suffered from no mental disorder that would have warranted his
separation processing through medical channels.

9.  The applicant also testified before the board of officers and indicated
that he was residing in the Colorado State Hospital.  He admitted that he
had hired someone to kill his wife, but the plan backfired and that his
wife had shot and killed the individual he hired in self-defense.  The
court entered a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity and he was
admitted to the State hospital.  He admits that he was diagnosed with a
personality disorder and that he was progressing and doing very well
according to his therapist.  He further indicated that he had been given
hints he would be released from the State hospital and expressed his desire
to continue to serve in the Army.

10.  The board of officers found the applicant had a personality disorder
as that term was defined in chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, and
further that the applicant was unsuitable for further retention in the
military service.  The board of officers recommended the applicant be
honorably discharged from the Army.

11.  On 28 July 1982, the separation authority approved the proceedings of
the board of officers and recommended the applicant be honorably
discharged.  On 10 August 1982, the applicant was discharged accordingly.

12.  The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant confirms he was separated
under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of
Unsuitability (Personality Disorder) after completing a total of 13 years,
5 months, and 22 days of creditable active military service and accruing 98
days of time lost due to civil confinement.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13, in effect at the time,
provided the authority to separate members for unsuitability (personality
disorder).

14.  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.

15.  Title 38, United States Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permits the
Department of Veterans Affairs (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 contention that he should have been medically
discharged based on his PTSD was carefully considered.  However, there is
insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  Although the applicant's record does not contain medical records with
the medical board proceedings and mental status evaluation completed on the
applicant, it does contain the board of officers proceedings that includes
the testimony of the Fort Carson Department of Psychiatry and Community
Mental Health Activities Chief, who confirms the applicant suffered from an
unspecified personality disorder, and that he had no mental disorder that
would have supported his separation processing through medical channels.
Further, in his own testimony, the applicant admitted he had been diagnosed
with a personality disorder by doctors at the State hospital and that he
was progressing nicely and wished to continue his service.  Thus, there is
insufficient evidence showing he suffered from a disabling mental condition
at the time of his discharge that would have supported a medical discharge.


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 the applicant's rights
were fully protected throughout the separation process.

4.  The veracity of the applicant's claim that he is now suffering from a
severe chronic PTSD is not in question.  However, 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.  The VA may
award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or
aggravated by active military service in accordance with its own policies
and regulations.  The VA 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.
Therefore, it is the appropriate agency to contact for care or compensation
related to a service connected disability that was not disabling at the
time of discharge.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 10 August 1982, the date of his
discharge.  Thus, the time of him to file a request for correction of any
error or injustice expired on 9 August 1985.  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

__KAN __  __DKH __  __LMD__  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.




                                  _____Kathleen A. Newman___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060012768                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/03/20                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1982/08/10                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 C13                          |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Personality Disorder                    |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schwartz                            |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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