IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  24 February 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080017428 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his 1976 honorable discharge be changed to a medical discharge. 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, based on his military medical records and notes from his commander he should have received a medical discharge.  At the age of 19 or 20, back in 1975 and 1976, without proper explanation, he was voluntarily discharged from the Army.  He was discharged for severe depression according to medical records and the commander used the article stating personality disorder.  These two are the same thing and that is why he believes he should have had a medical discharge.  He also states, in effect, that based on his medical issues with severe depression and the statement from his doctor stating that the severe depression and post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are service connected, he should be granted a medical discharge.   

3.  In support of his application, the applicant provides copies of his discharge separation documents, his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty), and a note from his doctor after review of his service medical records, Army Regulation 635-200, paragraphs 1-16 and 5-13, and articles from the Mayo Clinic internet site, titled "Personality disorders" and the galegroup internet site, titled "Depressive disorders."

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the United States Army Reserve on 18 February 1975.  He enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade 
E-1, on 23 June 1975, for 3 years.  He completed basic combat and advanced training and was awarded military occupational specialty 12B, Combat Engineer. He was advanced to pay grade E-2 on 23 October 1975.

3.  On 29 April 1976, the applicant’s unit commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) and he would be furnished an Honorable Discharge Certificate.  The unit commander stated the reasons for the proposed action was the applicant's professed complaint of inability to adjust to Army life and his suicidal tendencies.  He also stated that it was unlikely that efforts to rehabilitate or develop the applicant into a satisfactory member of the US Army would be successful.  

4.  On 29 April 1976, the applicant acknowledged the proposed action and voluntarily accepted the discharge.  He waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

5.  On 10 May 1976, the separation authority approved the recommendation for the applicant's discharge, and directed that he be furnished an Honorable Discharge Certificate.  

6.  The applicant was honorably discharged, in pay grade E-2, on 6 July 1976, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-37.  He was credited with 1 year and 14 days of total active service.  

7.  There is no evidence the applicant's unit commander referred him to a medical evaluation or a physical evaluation board for consideration of a personality disorder or severe depression prior to his separation.  


8.  The applicant submits copies of his Clinical Record Cover Sheet, that after being seen in the Psychiatry Clinic on 24 February 1976 he was diagnosed with an immature personality, chronic, moderate.  His predisposition was longstanding and determined to have existed prior to service.  His Report of Medical Examination, dated 15 June 1976, shows he had been diagnosed with severe depression.  He was found qualified for separation.

9.  The applicant further submits copies of Army Regulation 635-200, dated 6 June 2005, paragraph 1-16, that specifies that commander will ensure that adequate counseling and rehabilitative measure are taken before initiating separation proceedings for paragraph 5-13 (Personality Disorder) and medical examination are required for Soldier being processing for separation under paragraphs 5-3, 5-11, 5-12, 5-17, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 18.

10.  The applicant further submits copies of Army Regulation 635-200, dated 6 June 2005, paragraph 5-13, that specifies a Soldier may be separated for personality disorder (not amounting to disability) that interferes with assignment or with performance of duty.  The diagnosis of personality disorder must have been established by a psychiatrist or doctoral-level clinical psychologist.  Separation is authorized only if the diagnosis concludes that the disorder is so severe that the Soldier's ability to function effectively in the military environment is significantly impaired.

11.  The applicant also submits copies of articles from the Mayo Clinic internet site, titled "Personality disorders" and the galegroup internet site, titled "Depressive disorders."  These articles each contain a definition and description and other related information for each disorder.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Separations) provides the policy and sets forth the procedure for administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5, paragraph 5-37, as then in effect, provided, in pertinent part, for the EDP.  This program provided that an individual who had completed at least 6 months, but less than 36 months of active duty and who demonstrated (by poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential) that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards could be separated.  Such personnel were issued a general or honorable discharge, as appropriate, except that a recommendation for a general discharge had to be initiated by the immediate commander and the individual had to consult with legal counsel. 

13.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) according to the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Chapter 61, and Department of Defense Directive 332.18.  It sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply 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.  If a Soldier is found unfit because of physical disability, this regulation provides for disposition of the Soldier according to applicable laws and regulations.  Soldiers are referred into the PDES system when they no longer meet medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), Chapter 3. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant is not entitled to a change of his honorable discharge to a medical discharge.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request and has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief he now seeks. 

2.  The applicant's contention that he should have received a medical discharge has been noted.  However, the evidence shows the applicant voluntarily accepted discharge under the provisions of the EDP in lieu of disciplinary or administrative separation under other provisions of law or regulations.  He acknowledged that he understood the reasons for his discharge, waived his rights, and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  From this evidence, it is clear the applicant knew and understood the reasons for his discharge and the type of discharge he would be receiving.

3.  There is an absence of medical documentation to support his statement that he was discharged for severe depression.  His records do not show he was diagnosed with a personality or depressive disorder during his period of service from 23 June 1975 to 6 July 1976.  While the applicant's unit commander stated that the reasons for the proposed action was the applicant's professed complaint of inability to adjust to Army life and his suicidal tendencies, he believed that it was unlikely that efforts to rehabilitate or develop the applicant into a satisfactory member of the US Army would be successful.  Based on his separation physical examination he was found qualified for separation in July 1976.  

4.  There is no evidence the applicant was diagnosed or referred to a medical evaluation or a physical evaluation board for consideration of a personality or depressive disorder prior to his 1976 separation.  

5.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for that separation were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__x_____  ____x___  ___x____  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 for correction of the records of the individual concerned.




_______ _   _x______   ___
         CHAIRPERSON

I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.