RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  25 January 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060016335 


	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.


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Mrs. Victoria A. Donaldson

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. David K. Haasenritter 

Chairperson

Mr. James R. Hastie

Member

Mr. Edward E. Montgomery

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, reinstatement to active duty for the purpose of evaluation by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB).

2.  The applicant states that the Army improperly released him from active duty and discharged him from the South Carolina Army National Guard (SCARNG) while he was suffering from a medical disability. 

3.  The applicant provides a complete copy of his medical records in support of this application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Records show that the applicant enlisted in the SCARNG on 7 September 2001.

2.  SCARNG Orders Number 014-485, dated 10 February 2003, ordered the applicant to active duty in support of Contingency Operation Enduring Freedom on 10 February 2003. 

3.  The applicant's records contain a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) which shows that the applicant was released from active duty on 14 June 2004 for completion of required active service.  Upon release form active duty the applicant was returned to the control of the SCARNG.

4.  There is no indication that the applicant was evaluated by a MEB prior to his release from active duty.

5. SCARNG memorandum, dated 6 February 2005, shows that the applicant's commander requested that he be reviewed by medical professionals to assess his current status in the National Guard.  This memorandum furthered showed that the applicant was being seen by a psychologist for his PTSD symptoms which according to his counselor worsened with drill attendance.  The commander recommended that the applicant be reassigned to a more acceptable position or separated from the military entirely based on the needs of the Soldier and the SCARNG.

6.  State of South Carolina Military Department memorandum, dated 22 May 2005, directed the applicant's commander to initiate separation action on the applicant based on the recommendation by the Medical Review Board (MRB). 
7.  The complete MRB proceedings are not available for review with this case.  Available for review are a MRB Transmittal, dated 22 March 2005 which shows that the applicant's case was reviewed by the MRB on 18 March 2005 and that he was recommended for separation based on medical disqualification and a MRB Transmittal, dated 18 March 2005, which shows that the MILPO concurred with the MRB's recommendation to separate the applicant.

8.  On 25 July 2005, the applicant was notified by the commander of his intent to separate him under the proceedings of paragraph 1-25 of Army Regulation 135-178 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve- Enlisted Administrative Separations) for not meeting current medical qualifications.

9.  NGB Form 22 (Department of the Army and the Air Force, National Guard Bureau, Report of Separation and Record of Service) shows that the applicant was honorably separated on 15 October 2005 for being medically unfit for retention.

10.  Medical records show that the applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder and treated for depression, nightmares, and fears due to combat stress in April 2004.  Records further show that the applicant was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) in September 2004.  

11.  The applicant's records contain a Department of Veterans Affairs decision document, dated 30 September 2005, which granted the applicant service connected disability for the following conditions:

	a.  PTSD 30 percent effective 15 June 2004;

	b.  Right Knee Arthritis 10 percent effective 23 April 2005; and

	c.  Left Knee Arthritis 10 percent effective 23 April 2005.

12.  An advisory opinion was obtained from the National Guard Bureau, Chief of Personnel Division which recommended approval of the applicant's request for reinstatement on active duty for evaluation by a MEB.  The Chief of Personnel Division opined that the SCARNG did not comply with regulatory guidance, specifically, that the MRB did not have the authority to separate the applicant with consideration by a MEB.

13.  The Chief, Personnel Division stated that in accordance with Army Regulations 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) and 600-60 (Physical Performance Evaluation System) the applicant should have been evaluated by a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and a MEB to determine service connection prior to his separation.  Additionally, the Chief, Personnel Division, stated that the applicant should have under gone a Line of Duty investigation to determine if the service connected disabilities that he is currently receiving compensation for injuries incurred in the line of duty.

14.  The Chief, Personnel Division concluded that the applicant should be returned to active duty for a physical examination, a line of duty investigation, referral to a MEB and PEB and all benefits due as a result of these examinations.

15.  Army Regulation 600-60, paragraph 2-1b provides guidance for Medical Review Board.  Specifically, this paragraph states that the MRB can recommend that a Soldier be referred to the Physical Disability Evaluation Board for evaluation by a MEB and/or PEB.

16.  Army Regulation 40-400, paragraph 7-1 states that MEBs are convened to document a Soldier's medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is affected by the member's medical status.  Paragraph 7-21a(1) of this regulation states that Reserve Component members with line of duty disabilities who fail to meet retention standards will be referred to a PEB.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for reinstatement to active duty for the purpose of evaluation by a MEB was carefully considered and determined to have merit.

2.  Medical records clearly show that the applicant was diagnosed and treated for PTSD during his deployment in support of Contingency Operation Enduring Freedom during the 2003-2004 time period.

3.  Prior to his release form active duty, the applicant should have undergone a MEB and/or PEB.  Additionally, upon his return to control of the SCARNG, the applicant continued to experience the symptoms of PTSD and was treated for such symptoms.

4.  Evidence shows the applicant was separated as recommended by a MRB for failure to meet medical retention standards, specifically symptoms of his PTSD.  Regulation clearly shows the MRB should have referred the applicant for consideration by a MEB and PEB prior to his separation from the SCARNG.


5.  The National Guard Bureau recommended that the applicant be returned to active duty, evaluated by a PEB and a MEB, that a line of duty investigation be completed, and that the applicant be paid all back pay and allowances due if entitled.

6.  Based on all of the foregoing, it would be appropriate in this case to:

	a.  return the applicant to active duty for the purpose of evaluation by a MEB and PEB;

	b.  perform a line of duty investigation to determine if his service connected disabilities were incurred in the line of duty; and 

	c.  pay the applicant all back pay, allowances and benefits due as a result of the above recommendations.

BOARD VOTE:

__DKH__  _JKH___  __EEM___  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by returning the applicant to active duty for the purpose of evaluation by a MEB and PEB; performing a line of duty investigation to determine if his service connected disabilities were incurred in the line of duty; and paying the applicant be paid all back pay, allowances and benefits due if entitled as result of the above.




_David K. Haasenritter _
          CHAIRPERSON          



INDEX

CASE ID
AR
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
YYYYMMDD
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.