Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060016932C071029
Original file (20060016932C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        24 May 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060016932


      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      |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Ronald J. Weaver              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. David W. Tucker               |     |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 reconsideration of his earlier request that his
undesirable discharge be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states he was, and his records show, that he was not
mentally stable at the time of the incidents.  He is truly sorry about his
actions but feels he had mental problems that he could not handle at the
time and just showed poor judgment.

3.  The applicant provides a Mental Health Center Clinical Assessment,
dated     1 June 2006; a Computerized Medical Records Patient Face (sic)
Sheet, date of discharge 16 August 2006; an Anderson-Oconee-Pickens MHC
Discharge Plan and Summary, dated 1 August 2006; an A-O-P Mental Health
Center Clinical Assessment, dated 4 August 2006; a Plan of Care, undated
but prepared on or about 7 June 2006; an undated letter from the South
Carolina Department of Mental Health; an Authorization to Disclose
Protected Health Information, dated 8 November 2006; and a medical summary,
dated 7 July 2006.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number
AR20060001223 on 31 August 2006.

2.  The evidence provided by the applicant is new evidence that will be
considered by the Board.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 May 1966 and served in
Vietnam as an 11C (Indirect Fire Infantryman).

4.  On 7 December 1967, the applicant was convicted by a special court-
martial of being absent without leave (AWOL), from 7 October to 9 November
1967.  On 12 February 1968, he was again convicted by a special court-
martial of being AWOL, from 11 December 1967 to 24 January 1968.

5.  On 23 February 1968, the applicant completed a mental status
evaluation.  The evaluating psychiatrist found no evidence of any mental
condition which would warrant consideration for treatment, hospitalization,
or other disposition via medical channels.  The applicant was found capable
of distinguishing right from wrong and of adhering to the right and to
possess sufficient mental capacity to act in his own behalf in
administrative procedures deemed necessary by his command.

6.  On 19 July 1968, the applicant’s company commander initiated separation
action under Army Regulation 635-212 for unfitness.  The applicant was
advised of his rights by counsel.  He waived consideration of his case by a
board of officers; waived personal appearance before such a board; waived
representation by counsel; and elected not to make a statement on his
behalf.

7.  On 26 July 1968, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation
and directed the applicant receive an undesirable discharge.

8.  On 29 July 1968, the applicant completed a separation physical
examination and was found qualified for separation.

9.  On 2 August 1968, the applicant was discharged, with an undesirable
discharge and a characterization of services of under other than honorable
conditions, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-
212 for unfitness.  He had completed 1 year, 5 months and 17 days of
creditable active service and had 287 days of lost time.

10.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the basic
authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  The regulation
provided, in pertinent part, that members involved in frequent incidents of
a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, sexual
perversion, drug addiction or the unauthorized use or possession of habit-
forming drugs or marijuana, an established pattern for shirking, an
established pattern showing dishonorable failure to pay just debts or
failure to contribute adequate support to dependents, were subject to
separation for unfitness. Such action would be taken when it was clearly
established that despite attempts to rehabilitate or develop him as a
satisfactory Soldier further effort was unlikely to succeed.

11.  The applicant provided a medical summary, dated 7 July 2006.  The
medical summary noted that the applicant has a history of treatment with a
private psychiatrist for a number of years and has been prescribed
psychiatric medications by his primary care physician for the past couple
of years.   He reported a history of anxiety and depression of several
years’ duration and a history of symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder
since he was in Vietnam.

12.  The medical summary noted, in the mental status evaluation portion,
that the applicant appeared anxious.  His affect was mood congruent.  His
mood appeared to be depressed.  His thought processes were logical and
coherent.  His insight and judgment were intact.  There were no abnormal
movements evident.  The applicant was diagnosed with dysthymic disorder (a
type of depression that lasts for at least two years), post-traumatic
stress disorder, hypertension, coronary heart disease, and hyperlipidemia.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The medical documentation provided by the applicant, dated almost 40
years after his separation from the Army, have been carefully considered.

2.  It is noted that the applicant has currently been diagnosed as having
dysthymic disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder.  However, even the
medical summary he provided noted that although he appeared anxious and
depressed his thought processes were logical and coherent and his insight
and judgment were intact.  This is almost the same diagnosis that the
military psychiatrist made during the applicant’s February 1968 mental
status evaluation, wherein he was found to be capable of distinguishing
right from wrong and of adhering to the right.

3.  There is no evidence to show the applicant was mentally incapable of
knowing that he was wrong when he went AWOL.  Therefore, there is
insufficient evidence that would warrant upgrading his discharge.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jcr___  __rjw___  __dwt___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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 to amend the decision of
the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20060001223 dated 31 August 2006.



                                  __Jeffrey C. Redmann__
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060016932                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070524                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19680802                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-212                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |A51.00                                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schwartz                            |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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


Similar Decisions

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012-00636

    Original file (PD2012-00636.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    At that time the PEB adjudicated schizoaffective disorder as permanently unfitting, rated 10% with application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). TDRL RATING COMPARISON: Service IPEB – Dated 20021219 Condition On TDRL – 19990414 Schizoaffective Disorder No Additional MEB/PEB Entries Combined: 10% Code 9211 Rating TDRL 30% Sep. 10% VA – All Effective Date 19990415 Code Condition Schizoaffective Disorder 9211* 0% x 0/Not Service-Connected x 0 Combined:...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2014 | PD-2014-02931

    Original file (PD-2014-02931.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    SEPARATION DATE: 20050502 The Board noted that despite medication and talk therapy, the CI continued to demonstrate “consistently poor mood and work performance.” After due deliberation, considering all of the evidence and mindful of VASRD §4.3 (reasonable doubt), the Board recommends a disability rating of 30% for the dysthymic disorder condition. BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military Department regulations or guidelines relied upon by the PEB will not be...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01862

    Original file (PD2012 01862.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The Board also noted that relative contribution to impairment from the CI’s OCD, PTSD, depression, and anxiety disorders diagnosed could not be separated, therefore the Board considered the mental health conditions together in its deliberations. The examiner also noted no suicidal thoughts. BOARD FINDINGS : IAW DoDI 6040.44, provisions of DoD or Military Department regulations or guidelines relied upon by the PEB will not be considered by the Board to the extent they were inconsistent with...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 00503

    Original file (PD2013 00503.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    SCOPE OF REVIEW : The CI was notified by the Army that his case may eligible for review of the military disability evaluation of any mental health (MH) condition in accordance with Secretary of Defense directive for a comprehensive review of Service members who were referred to a disability evaluation process between 11 September 2001 and 30 April 2012 and whose MH diagnoses were changed or eliminated during that process. The Board’s authority as defined in DoDI 6044.40, however, resides in...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00470

    Original file (PD2009-00470.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The principle of rating all mental health symptoms under the predominate diagnosis is endorsed and there is no evidence in the record that CI's impairment due to different diagnoses can be specifically separated. The LCSW noted a decrease in panic attacks to 1x/week, and the VA noted that the CI had self-discontinued medications as not helping and making him feel worse and noted impaired interpersonal interactions. The Board determined that at the time of separation, the CI's clinical...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01187

    Original file (PD2012 01187.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It is limited to those conditions determined by the PEB to be unfitting for continued military service and those conditions identified but not determined to be unfitting by the PEB when specifically requested by the CI. She was placed on medications and was able to function well. The majority agreed that the evidence did not warrant application of VASRD §4.129.The Board then determined the most appropriate fit with VASRD §4.130 criteria, its permanent rating recommendation at the time of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003087427C070212

    Original file (2003087427C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. The Board considered the following evidence: EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005934

    Original file (20080005934.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    His service medical records of his attempted suicide, the diagnosed PTSD from combat service with the VA medical records, and his psychiatric evaluation during his discharge proceedings should have been made available to the previous Board. The applicant further stated that in February 1971 he was discharged from the Army. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00430

    Original file (PD2009-00430.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The PEB determined he was unfit for continued military service and he was then separated with a 10% disability for Anxiety Disorder using the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Ratings Disabilities (VASRD) and applicable Coast Guard and Department of Defense regulations. The psychiatrist recommended the CI was not psychiatrically fit for sea duty in the USCG, based on a combination of moderately severe psychiatric disorders. Four conditions had been evaluated by two previous PEBs which both...

  • AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00111

    Original file (PD2009-00111.docx) Auto-classification: Denied

    The CI was referred to the Navy Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and determined unfit for continued Naval service. He revealed his anxiety disorder on his commissioning physical but denied any symptoms at the time and the condition was considered resolved. The CI’s condition worsened over time and the VA increased his rating to 50% effective two years after he separated from the Navy.