IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	         27 August 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090004618 


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 reconsideration of his previous request that his discharge with severance pay in 1970 be changed to a medical retirement.

2.  The applicant states that when he applied for severance pay, he did not supply any additional evidence to substantiate his claim and that he will now try to explain why he submitted his claim in the first place.  He states that when he voluntarily checked himself into the hospital, he knew that he was not able to control his thoughts, which were constantly racing through his mind.  He states that he was in a morbid state of schizophrenia and in a deep state of paranoia as he was not able to distinguish or understand his inner world of confusion and fear.  He states that this was the beginning of an inward and outward struggle for mental survival and that he had no idea where it was going to end.  He states that when he went to the hospital he was seeking help to get off the roller coaster in his mind and that after being there for a short time, he realized that it was driving him crazy.  He states that he decided to mimic the behavior of others in order to get out of the hospital; therefore he was able to convince the doctor that he was doing well enough to get out.  He states that he went back to his old unit and that after about 2 weeks of trying to get into his old routine, the battle in his mind was too great.  He states that as much as he hated the idea of going back to the hospital, it was his only hope.  He states that he spent 3 months trying to get his mental state of mind to a healthy state and that he was subsequently sent to Letterman General Hospital in San Francisco, California.  



3.  The applicant states that after being told that he was “too well’ to be there, he began to question if he really had a legitimate problem.  He states that he was so distraught that he couldn’t even explain what was hurting or why he was hurting.  He states that he was asked by a doctor if he would volunteer to be questioned before a room of his peers and that he agreed.  He states that during the questioning, he felt as though his very soul was being attacked and that he told the doctor that he could not continue.  He states that he still remembers saying that he had a deep fear of becoming mentally sick like his mom.  He states that after his intake of Thorazine was reduced, he seemed to improve until he left the hospital.  The applicant states that when he left the hospital he started having suicidal thoughts and that eventually he was able to overcome those thoughts.  He states that when he went for his evaluation, he told the doctor that he was perfectly fine and that he was not being entirely truthful.

4.  The applicant states that as the years have passed, he has struggled with periods of depression and that his doctor has informed him that he displays signs of having a bi-polar disorder.  He states that medication makes him feel worse and that his biggest problem has been a lack of sleep.  He states that he is on medication to help him sleep and the medication has allowed him to get some much needed rest.  He concludes by stating that he does not know if his story makes any difference in the decision making process, however, he believes that he has at least painted a more accurate picture of why he applied for severance pay.

5.  The applicant provides a copy of a letter from the Director, Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) dated 28 January 2009, notifying him that his application had been denied; page 1 of the ABCMR Record of Proceedings dated 27 January 2009; and a letter from the Army Review Boards Agency, Chief, Congressional and Special Actions, informing him that his letter and supporting documents had been forwarded to the ABCMR for processing. 

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 AR20080016694, on 27 January 2009.






2.  The documentation provided by the applicant is new argument which will be considered by the Board.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 October 1967 and he successfully completed his training as a manual central office repairman.  He was promoted through the ranks to sergeant (E-5).

4.  On 18 June 1970, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened to determine whether the applicant was medically unfit for further military service in accordance with medical fitness standards then in effect.  The MEB diagnosed the applicant with schizophrenic reaction, paranoid type, acute, severe, improved, manifested by auditory hallucinations, ideas of reference, autistic thinking, looseness of associations, and delusions of grandiosity.  The board indicated that his stress was minimal; that his military living was routine; that is predisposition was mild; that he had a family history of mental illness; and that he had a marked impairment for further military duty.  The MEB found that the applicant was considered to be mentally competent for pay purposes; that he had the capacity to understand the nature of and to cooperate in board proceedings; and that he was not a danger to himself or to others and could be discharged to his own care.  The MEB further found that the applicant was medically unfit for further military service in accordance with medical fitness standards then in effect.  The MEB recommended that the applicant be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for consideration and processed for separation.  The applicant initialed that he had no desire to continue on active duty.

5.  On 26 June 1970, an informal PEB convened to determine the applicant’s fitness for retention in the Army.  The PEB diagnosed the applicant with schizophrenic reaction, paranoid type.  The PEB found the applicant unfit to perform the duties of his office, rank or grade, due to a physical disability and the board recommended that he be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) with a 30 percent disability rating and reexamination during July 1971.  The applicant concurred with the finding s and recommendation of the informal PEB and he waived a formal hearing of his case.

6.  On 10 August 1970, the applicant was retired by reason of physical disability and he was placed on the TDRL.  He had completed 2 years, 9 months and 11 day of total active service.

7.  On 23 July 1971, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened to determine whether the applicant should be referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) for consideration based on a diagnosis of schizophrenic reaction, acute, 


moderate, manifested by a past history of ideas of reference, delusional thinking, loosened associations and possible hallucinations.  The MEB found that the applicant was competent to handle his own affairs; that he had the capacity to understand the nature of and to cooperate in PEB proceedings; and that he was not considered dangerous to himself or to others.  The MEB further found that the applicant was medically unfit for further military service in accordance with medical fitness standards then in effect.  The MEB recommended that the applicant be permanently medically discharged from military service.

8.  In a statement dated 26 July 1971, the applicant acknowledged that he had been advised of the findings and recommendations of the MEB and that he understood that he had the right to appeal his case to the approving authority if he did not agree with the board’s action.  He indicated that he had been informed of the approved findings and recommendation of the board and that he concurred with the board’s action.

9.  On 11 August 1971, a PEB convened to reevaluate the applicant’s condition.  The PEB determined the applicant’s schizophrenia reaction, paranoid type, to be in full remission.  The PEB found the applicant unfit for military service and the board recommended that he be separated with severance pay, with a disability rating of 0 percent.

10.  In a letter dated 1 September 1971, the Recorder, United States Army Physical Evaluation Board (USAPEB) notified the Chairman, United States Army Physical Review Council, that on 13 August 1971, the applicant received a copy of the 11 August 1971 PEB proceeding and, after being fully apprised of his rights to a formal hearing, as of that date, he had failed to make an election.  The Recorder, USAPEB stated that in view of the provisions of paragraph 4-23, Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), it was deemed that the applicant had effectively waived his right to a formal hearing and that the board proceeding were being forwarded for appropriate action.

11.  In Letter Orders Number D 9 940 dated 29 September 1971, the Adjutant General notified the applicant that he was being removed the TDRL and that he was being discharged from the service with entitlement to severance pay, effective 31 October 1971, with a disability rating of 0 percent.

12.  Paragraph 7-11a (Disposition of the temporary disability retired list Soldier - Action following periodic PEB evaluation or on fifth anniversary) of Army Regulation 635-40 states that the U.S. Army Human Resources Command (USA 


HRC) will remove a Soldier from the TDRL on the fifth anniversary of the date the Soldier's name was placed on the list, or sooner on the approved recommendation of a PEB.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his discharge with severance pay should be changed to a medical retirement.

2.  His contentions have been noted and his arguments have been carefully considered.  However, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant a reversal of the previous decision that was made in his case.

3.  The applicant was notified on 13 August 1971 of the decision that was made in his case by the PEB that convened on 11 August 1971 and he failed to make a proper election for a formal hearing of his case.  In accordance with the applicable regulation, when he failed to make the election for a formal hearing, he effectively waived his right to a formal hearing and the PEB proceedings were forwarded for approval by the appropriate authority.

4.  The applicant has not established error or injustice in the decisions made in his case by the MEB, the PEB or the ABCMR.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20080016694, dated 27 January 2009.




      _______ _   _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.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090004618



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090004618



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1