RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  8 March 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060017044 


	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

Mr. David S. Griffin

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. William F. Crain

Chairperson

Mr. Edward E. Montgomery

Member

Ms. Rea M. Nuppenau

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, reconsideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) denial of his request for his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to a medical discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he should have received a medical discharge.

3.  The applicant provides a statement, dated 14 August 2006, from the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC), Atlanta, Georgia; a statement from a psychiatrist, dated 22 April 2006, in Atlanta; extracts from his service medical record which are dated 1974; a letter, dated 14 October 2005, from the VAMC Atlanta; extracts from his medical record at VAMC Atlanta, dated from 30 September 2005 to 3 May 2006; and extracts from his medical record at VAMC Atlanta that are dated in 2005.

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 AR 20050008804, dated 4 April 2006.

2.  In the original findings, the ABCMR found that the applicant’s overall record did not rise to the level of honorable service when considering his repeated acts of misconduct and that he was physically and mentally qualified for separation at the time of his discharge.  

3.  A letter, dated 14 October 2005, from the VAMC Atlanta; extracts from the applicant’s medical record at VAMC Atlanta that are dated in 2005; and extracts from the applicant’s service medical record, dated 1974, submitted by the applicant were previously considered by the ABCMR.

4.  A statement, dated 14 August 2006, from the VAMC Atlanta; a statement from a psychiatrist, dated 22 April 2006, in Atlanta; and extracts from the applicant’s  medical record at VAMC Atlanta, dated from 30 September 2005 to 3 May 2006 submitted by the applicant are new evidence and will be considered by the Board.  

5.  In the statement, dated 14 August 2006, from VAMC Atlanta, a licensed clinical social worker describes the applicant’s current course of treatment and symptoms for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
6.  In the statement dated 22 April 2006, a board certified psychiatrist states he saw the applicant on 12 October 2005 and 10 January 2006, diagnosed the applicant with PTSD, and prescribed medication for the applicant.

7.  The extracts from the applicant’s medical record at VAMC Atlanta, dated from 30 September 2005 to 3 May 2006, shows the applicant was being treated for cocaine dependence, alcohol dependence, nicotine addiction, continuous substance induced mood disorder, and PTSD.

8.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) provides that the medical treatment facility commander with the primary care responsibility will evaluate those referred to him and will, if it appears as though the member is not medically qualified to perform duty or fails to meet retention criteria, refer the member to a medical evaluation board.  Those members who do not meet medical retention standards will be referred to a physical evaluation board (PEB) for a determination of whether they are able to perform the duties of their grade and military specialty with the medically disqualifying condition.

9.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), in effect at the time, provided that no enlisted member may be referred for physical disability processing when action has been or will be taken to separate him or her for unfitness, except when the officer exercising general court-martial jurisdiction determines that the disability was the cause or substantial contributing cause of the misconduct, or that circumstances warrant physical disability processing in lieu of administrative processing.  A copy of the signed decision of the general court-martial authority directing physical disability processing will be included with the records.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was discharged for unfitness due to frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with authorities.  

2.  Treatment records submitted by the applicant show the current medical status of medical conditions, 30 years after the date of the applicant’s discharge,  suffered by the applicant and are insufficient to override the fact the applicant was found to be physically and mentally qualified at the time of his discharge.

3.  There is no evidence of record and the applicant has not submitted any evidence that he had a medical condition which would have warranted him being considered by a MEBD.  Without an MEBD, there would have been no basis for referring him to a PEB.  Without a PEB, the applicant could not have been issued a medical discharge or retired for physical unfitness.  

4.  In addition, there is no evidence the applicant suffered from a medical condition that caused or substantially caused his misconduct.  Therefore, the applicant could not have been referred for physical disability processing once action had been taken to separate him for unfitness.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___rmn__  ___eem__  ___wfc__  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 AR20050008804, dated 4 April  2006.
 



__________William F. Crain________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060017044
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20070308
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.