IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  5 January 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090013276 


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.  Through a remand action, the United States Court of Federal Claims, Washington D.C. requests the ABCMR determine whether the Army followed proper procedures in discharging the applicant from active duty service and to resolve the matter in accordance with the Army's established regulatory procedures.  

2.  In an order on the defendant's (government's) motion for clarification, dated   3 September 2009, the court confirmed it was granting the ABCMR full discretion to resolve the matter in accordance with established regulatory procedures and is not compelling the ABCMR to submit the plaintiff's (applicant's) file directly to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB). 

3.  The applicant submits a statement in conjunction with the court remand action in which he indicates he filed a complaint with the United States Court of Federal Claims for wrongful military discharge, payment for relief in military back pay, reinstatement one month before the expiration of his term of service (ETS), and military education beneficiary status (earned service credit).  He states that the court remanded his case to the ABCMR and he is submitting his statement based on the court's notification to do so.  He submits an amended application statement, which he indicates addresses the issues more clearly with facts focusing on the issues, and all legal issues in the complaints are addressed and more clearly identified in his statement.  


4.  The applicant outlines the facts surrounding his discharge processing by indicating that on 26 January 2004, his sergeant (SGT) notified him of his commander's referral for a mental status evaluation.  He claims that he was referred for this evaluation as a result of making a grievance against his new roommate who was grinding his teeth at night and keeping him awake.  He claims the SGT notified him of his right to counsel, but failed to notify him of his other rights under the Military Mental Health Evaluation Protection Act (MMHEPA) and Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 6490.4.    

5.  The applicant states he was unexpectedly forced to be an inpatient at a mental hospital on 3 February 2004.  He claims the mental health care provider (MHCP) failed to ensure he had acknowledged his rights before conducting the mental health evaluation and did not inform him of anything about his mental status or problems while he was hospitalized.  He claims he was unaware the doctor had even diagnosed him with a delusional disorder until he was released from the hospital.  He claims the MHCP did not review the commander's signed memorandum, which included the statement regarding the service member's rights forwarded by the commanding officer prior to the evaluation.  

6.  The applicant claims he was released from the hospital on 6 February 2004, and returned to his unit, at which time he requested to see the Group commander, which he was prevented from doing.  He informed his SGT that he felt a slight side effect from his medication and the SGT called the mental health clinic and was advised the applicant could suspend his medication for the weekend and then follow up with a doctor's appointment later.  On 9 February 2004, he went to the clinic as instructed by his SGT, but was not allowed to see a psychiatrist or other doctor.  He was allowed only to pick up more medication.  On 10 February 2004, he claims his SGT unexpectedly gave him three formal counseling statements (DA Forms 4856), which indicated he was counseled on his inability to perform his duties as the unit armorer, his refusal to take medication, his refusal to accept the advice of medical clinic personnel to discontinue the medication for the weekend and to see a doctor at a later date, and of the requirement for him to take his medication under the supervision of his sergeant or another designated specialist.  

7.  The applicant states that on 11 February 2004, the commander initiated separation action and cited the delusional disorder diagnosis, his counseling of
6 February 2004, and the applicant's inability to perform his duties as the unit armorer as the reasons for taking the action.  He claims he submitted his own statement on 17 February 2004, in which argued that he had not refused to take medication and he requested he be given a reasonable opportunity to overcome or correct the problem, as was required by the counseling regulation.  

8.  The applicant further indicates that he requested a reevaluation of his mental condition.  However, the separation action continued and was approved by the separation authority.  In his statement, the applicant identifies the following nine reasons he believes his discharge was improper and inequitable and provides his written explanation/argument on each factor:  (1) wrongful initiation of separation;
(2) equitable estoppels; (3) unit discrimination based on race, national origin and age; (4) MHCP discrimination based on age and unit's influence; (5) regulatory right to an MEB; (6) failure to be notified of statutory and regulatory rights; 
(7) deprivation of liberty interest in employment; (8) deprivation of regulatory right to submit a meaningful statement for meaningful review; and (9) denial of right to evaluation by independent MHCP and/or to obtain a second opinion.

9.  The following documents are provided in support of the application:  United States Court of Federal Claims Remand Order, dated 24 July 2009; United States Court of Federal Claims Clarification Court Remand Order, dated 
3 September 2009; Applicant Supplemental Military Records and Personal Statement (application) with enclosures identified.  

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 24 July 2009, the United States Court of Federal Claims issued an Order on Defendant's Motion to Remand, in which the court instructed the Board to determine whether the Army followed proper procedures in separating the applicant from service.  The court specifically instructed the Board to grant the applicant the opportunity to appear before an MEB and to attempt rehabilitation, if possible.  

2.  On 25 August 2009, the applicant submitted an electronic mail message to a member of the Board staff in which he indicated he had informed the medical officer who contacted him that he did not wish to proceed with an MEB.  

3.  On 3 September 2009, the United States Court of Federal Claims issued an Order on Defendant's Motion for Clarification, in which the court clarified for the applicant and his counsel that the court's 24 July 2009 order remanded his case to the ABCMR for a period not to exceed six months in order for the Board to determine whether the Army followed proper procedures in discharging the applicant from active duty service and in doing so, the court granted the ABCMR full discretion to resolve the matter in accordance with established regulatory procedures and did not compel the ABCMR to submit the applicant's case to an MEB.  Based on the existing court-orders, the Board will complete a de novo review to comply with the court's instructions to determine if the Army followed proper procedures in discharging the applicant from active duty service and make its recommendations accordingly.  

4.  The applicant's record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years and entered active duty, in the rank of specialist (SPC), on 
12 September 2002, which established his ETS as 11 September 2005.  

5.  On 26 January 2004, the applicant's platoon sergeant formally counseled the applicant on his command referral for a mental status examination and documented this counseling in a DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form).  In the key points of discussion section of Part III (Summary of Counseling) of the form, the platoon sergeant outlined a personal situation presented by the applicant, which was that for 10 years an organization known as the inflictors had been harassing the applicant.  The platoon sergeant indicated that after hearing this story, it was in the best interest of the unit to ensure the applicant's safety as well as the safety of the other members of the unit.  In the session closing section of Part III of the DA Form 4856, the applicant agreed with the counseling statement.  

6.  On 3 February 2004, the applicant was admitted to the 121st General Hospital in Germany for a psychiatric evaluation and treatment following referral by his commander.  

7.  A Standard Form (SF) 502 (Narrative Summary (Clinical Resume)) completed on the applicant by his doctor on 6 February 2004, which documents his hospital stay, indicates that according to the applicant, he had been disturbed by his roommate grinding his teeth in the middle of the night and he began to entertain the idea that a few people in Los Angeles might contact his roommate in order to disturb him.  He thought that it was a deliberate act by his roommate and thought that a few people working at a radio station in Los Angeles bugged his telephone and made complaints to local police stations in 1995.  Approximately two years prior, the applicant had requested an investigation of the radio station by writing a letter to the Governor of California and visiting the local police as well as the FBI, at which time he apparently told them there was no good evidence to initiate an investigation.  The applicant acknowledged that he was disturbed by his roommate grinding his teeth; however, he denied having any thoughts of harming his roommate.  

8.  The past history section of the SF 502 indicated the applicant visited a psychiatrist three times in the year 2000, after he was annoyed by his idea that he had been harassed by people working at a radio station.  The applicant acknowledged that it had been suggested he take medication but he refused.  In the medical history portion, it indicates the applicant had no known medical condition requiring treatment and that the applicant denied alcohol or drug abuse. 

9.  The mental status examination portion of the SF 502 shows the applicant indicated that people working at radio station in Los Angeles might have influenced his roommate to disturb him.  However, the applicant admitted this might not be a logical idea; nevertheless, he was still convinced people working at the radio station bugged his telephone a number of years ago in order to harass him.  The examining physician stated the applicant denied hearing voices or seeing things, and no suicidal or homicidal thoughts were elicited.  He further indicated the applicant was alert and oriented and his memory was intact for recent and remote events.  The course of treatment outlined on the form by the examining psychiatrist was to place the applicant on antipsychotic medication to contain his irrational ideas, to provide him supportive therapy, milieu and education regarding his illness and need for treatment.  The examining psychiatrist indicated the applicant responded to treatment with development of some insight but remained convinced that he was persecuted by people in 
Los Angeles.  The applicant was discharged in fair condition with a recommendation that he be separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-17, Army Regulation 635-200.  The diagnosis was (Axis 1) Delusional Disorder and the plan was to provide follow-up at the out-patient mental health clinic, 121st General Hospital.  

10.  The MEDCOM FORM 699-R (Mental Status Evaluation) completed on the applicant by the examining psychiatrist on 6 February 2004, identified areas of evaluation,  identified in Section II (Evaluation) of the form, and findings of the examining psychiatrist in those areas:  Behavior, "suspicious"; Level of Alertness, "fully alert"; Level of Orientation, "fully oriented"; Mood or Affect, "unremarkable"; Thinking Process, "clear"; and Thought Content, "delusions."  The examining psychiatrist remarked that based on the evaluation, the diagnostic impressions, within the meaning of Army Regulation 40-501, Army Regulation 635-200, and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual-Test Revision (DSM-IV-TR) was "delusional disorder."  He further commented that the clinical evaluation indicated the applicant suffered from a psychiatric disease, defect, or personality disorder that would cause significant defects in judgment, responsibility, or reliability.  He further indicated the applicant would be provided counseling at the outpatient mental health clinic and that appointment information would be provided.  

11.  The examining psychiatrist finally remarked that the retention of the applicant would likely create additional management problems for the commander and he recommended the applicant be administratively discharged under the provisions of paragraph 5-17, Army Regulation 635-200.  He further indicated the applicant should have no access to weapons, that a health and welfare inspection be done on his room to remove hazardous materials (e.g. pills, knives, weapons, etc), that he be watched closely for signs of depression or suicide and returned the emergency room or psychiatry clinic if such signs were present, and that the applicant's return for follow up appointments be ensured.  
12.  On 10 February 2004, the applicant's platoon sergeant formally counseled the applicant regarding applicable special instructions for the applicant's return to the unit from the 121st Medical Center and documented this counseling in a 
DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form).  In the key points of discussion section of Part III (Summary of Counseling) of the form, the platoon sergeant outlined the results of the applicant's mental status evaluation and the fact the applicant was put on medication for his diagnosed condition.  He further indicated that his doctor told the applicant he was to take one pill before bed every night.  The platoon sergeant further indicated that the applicant's condition would not allow him to continue his duties as the unit armorer and that the applicant was prohibited from entering the arms room.  Finally, the platoon sergeant indicated the applicant was required to inform his supervisor or him of his whereabouts during duty hours.  In the session closing portion of Part III, the applicant agreed with the key points presented by the platoon sergeant.  

13.  On 10 February 2004, the applicant's platoon sergeant formally counseled the applicant regarding special medical instructions for applicant's return to the unit and documented this counseling in a DA Form 4856.  The platoon sergeant noted, in the key points of discussion section of Part III of the DA Form 4856, that upon the applicant's return from his follow up visit at the 121st Hospital on 
9 February 2004, the applicant's doctor cut his initial dose of one pill per night to a half pill per night.  The applicant was informed that he would be administered the medication each night by a designated Soldier or the platoon sergeant in order to ensure he was taking the recommended dose.  The platoon sergeant informed the applicant that if he failed to comply with these instructions, he would be readmitted to the hospital where he could be administered the medication under professional care.  In the plan of action section of Part III, the platoon sergeant informed the applicant that he would take his medication under the direct supervision of the designated Soldier or the platoon sergeant every night.  In the session closing section of the form, the applicant agreed with the key points and plan of action outlined by the platoon sergeant in the DA Form 4856.  

14.  On 6 February 2004, the platoon sergeant conducted a second formal counseling session with the applicant and documented this counseling on a
DA Form 4856.  In the key points of discussion section of Part III of the form, the platoon sergeant indicated that the applicant attempted to by-pass his chain of command to see the group commander and that when the first sergeant and he tried to assist with the problem, the applicant indicated he had evidence that someone had violated his privacy by accessing his computer while he was in the hospital and that he had proof of this violation.  When the applicant was asked to produce the proof, he continuously refused to show the proof and indicated he was uncomfortable showing it to them because they would not believe him.  

15.  In the 6 February 2004 counseling, the platoon sergeant also noted the applicant's refusal to take his medication on his first day back from the hospital, and that after taking one pill on Wednesday night and one pill on Thursday night, he indicated he had a slight side effect on Friday afternoon and at that time he and the applicant called the clinic and was informed it was unlikely someone would suffer the side effect presented by the applicant so soon after starting medication, but that he could discontinue the medication over the weekend.  The platoon sergeant further indicated the applicant then requested a pass that was refused and was then directed to report to the clinic on 9 February 2004 for a consultation with his doctor.  The applicant was then instructed to check in with the Charge of Quarters every two hours between 0800hrs and 2000hrs over the weekend, or by calling the platoon sergeant on his cell phone.  The platoon sergeant informed the applicant that if he continued this behavior involuntary separation action could be initiated and he informed the applicant of the effects of an involuntary discharge.  

16.  In the plan of action section of Part III of the 6 February 2004 counseling form, the platoon sergeant outlined his instructions for the applicant to check in with him or the CQ every two hours over the weekend.  In the session closing section of the form, the applicant disagreed with the information in the counseling form and stated that he would follow the instructions and wanted to apologize for his behavior.  However, he believes there was a misunderstanding of his attempt at the time. 

17.  On 11 February 2004, the applicant's commander notified the applicant of his intent to process the applicant for separation under the provisions of paragraph 5-17, Army Regulation 635-200 based on his designated physical or mental condition.  The commander stated that his reason for taking the action was the delusional disorder diagnosis and administrative separation recommendation of the examining psychiatrist contained in the mental status evaluation completed on the applicant.  

18.  In the separation request, the commander also indicated that the applicant had been counseled on his refusal to take his prescribed medication and on his inability to maintain his duty position as unit armorer.  The commander informed the applicant he intended to recommend an honorable discharge (HD), and informed the applicant of his rights, which included his right to counsel. 

19.  On 11 February 2004, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the unit commander's separation action notification, and confirmed he had been advised of his right to consult with counsel prior to completing his election of rights.  


20.  On 17 February 2004, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects, the rights available to him and the effect of a waiver of those rights.  Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, the applicant completed his election or rights and submitted a statement in his own behalf.  

21.  In his statement, the applicant requested a reevaluation of his mental status and indicated that he was shocked when informed of his discharge.  He claimed to have followed his doctor's instructions on taking medication and was shocked that his counseling statement indicated he refused to take his medication.  He further indicated that he would like to be fairly and subjectively evaluated and requested he be given a reasonable opportunity to overcome or correct his problem as outlined in rehabilitation regulatory guidance.  He further requested reevaluation of his mental status with a family member and unit member present. 

22.  On 19 February 2004, the unit commander submitted a recommendation that the applicant be separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-17, 
Army Regulation 635-200, based on his delusional disorder diagnosis.  The unit commander indicated that rehabilitative attempts were made through counseling of the applicant and that subsequent to counseling, the applicant had demonstrated a lack of acceptance of rehabilitative measures.  

23.  The separation authority directed the applicant's separation from the Army under the provisions paragraph 5-17, Army Regulation 635-200, because of other designated physical or mental condition and waived the rehabilitative transfer requirement of the governing regulation.  He further indicated that the applicant would not be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve, and would receive an HD.  On 13 March 2004, the applicant was discharged accordingly. 

24.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) issued to the applicant on 13 March 2004, the date of his discharge, shows he completed a total of 1 year, 6 months, and 2 days of active military service and received an HD.  

25.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets the policy and procedure for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 1-16 provides guidance on counseling and rehabilitative requirements.  It states, in pertinent part, that commanders will ensure that adequate counseling and rehabilitative measures are taken before initiating separation proceedings.  It further indicates that when a Soldier's conduct or performance becomes unacceptable, the commander will ensure that a responsible official formally notifies the Soldier of his/her deficiencies.  At least one formal counseling session is required before separation proceedings may be initiated.  
26.  Paragraph 1-16 of the enlisted administrative separations regulation further states the number and frequency of formal counseling sessions are discretionary. Rehabilitative reassignment is required for members being separated under the provisions of chapter 11, chapter 13 and chapter 14.  Wavier of counseling requirements is not authorized; however, the rehabilitative transfer requirements in chapters 11, 13, and 14 may be waived by the separation authority in circumstances where common sense and sound judgment indicate that such a transfer will serve no useful purpose or produce a quality Soldier.  

27.  Paragraph 1-32e of the same regulation provides guidance on command directed mental health evaluations performed in connection with separation under paragraph 5-17.  It states, in pertinent part, that it will be performed by a psychiatrist, doctoral-level clinical psychologist, or doctoral-level clinical social worker with necessary and appropriate professional credentials who is privileged to conduct mental health evaluations for the DOD components. 

28.  Chapter 5 of the enlisted separations regulation provides guidance on administrative separations for the convenience of the government.  Paragraph
5-17 contains the policies and procedures for separating members by reason of other designated physical or mental conditions and states, in pertinent part, that separations may be approved under this paragraph on the basis of physical or mental conditions not amounting to a disability under Army Regulation 635-40, and excluding conditions appropriate for separation processing under paragraph 5-11 (Not Meeting Procurement Medical Fitness Standards) and/or 5-13 (Personality Disorder).  It further states that when a commander determines that a Soldier has a physical or mental condition that potentially interferes with assignment to or performance of duty, the commander will refer the Soldier for a medical examination and/or mental status evaluation in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501.  Command-directed mental status evaluations will comply with paragraph 1-32e.  There is no requirement for rehabilitative reassignment in connection with a separation under the provisions of paragraph 5-17.  

29.  Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) governs medical fitness standards for retention and separation, including retirement.  Chapter 3 contains medical retention standards.

30.  Paragraph 3-31 of the medical fitness standards regulation contains guidance on disorders with psychotic features.  It states, in pertinent part, that the causes for referral to an MEB are mental disorders not secondary to intoxication, infectious, toxic, or other organic causes, with gross impairment in reality testing, resulting in interference with duty or social adjustment.  


31.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) and 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.  

32.  Chapter 4, Section III, of the same regulation contains guidance on medical processing related to disability evaluation and states, in pertinent part, that an MEB is convened to document a Soldier's medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is affected by the Soldier's status and a decision is made as to the Soldier's medical qualification for retention.  If the MEB determines a Soldier does not meet retention standards, it will recommend referral to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).

33.  Section IV, Army Regulation 635-40 contains guidance on physical disability evaluation and states, in pertinent part, that a PEB is established to evaluate all cases of physical disability equitably for the Soldier and the Army and is a fact finding board that investigates the nature, cause, degree of severity, and probable permanency of the disability of Soldiers whose cases are referred to the board; that evaluates the physical condition of the Soldier against the physical requirements of the Soldier's particular office, grade, rank, or rating; that provides a full and fair hearing for the Soldier; and that makes findings and recommendations required by law to establish the eligibility of a Soldier to be separated or retired because of physical disability.  

34.  Appendix B of the physical disability regulation contains guidance on the Army's application of the Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD).  Paragraph B-107 of the physical disability regulation contains guidance on mental disorders and covers VASRD codes 9200-9511.  It states, in pertinent part, that loss of function is the principal criterion for establishing the level of impairment resulting from mental illness.  Loss of function is reflected in impaired social and industrial adaptability.  Psychoses specifically include those disorders manifesting disturbances of perception, thinking, emotional control, and behavior, severe enough to hinder economic adjustment, that is, hinder the Soldier's capacity to perform military duties or to earn a living.  The DSM defines a delusional disorder as a psychotic mental disorder and is diagnosed when prominent non-bizarre delusions are present for at least one month and the symptom criteria for schizophrenia have never been met.   The identified VASRD code for a delusional disorder is 9208.  


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows that based on the diagnosis and recommendation of competent medical authority, the applicant's chain of command processed him for separation under the provisions of paragraph 5-17, Army Regulation 635-200, based on his suffering from a physical or mental condition that could potentially interfere with assignment to or performance of duty.  

2.  The applicant was properly referred for a mental status evaluation by his commander and examined by a qualified psychiatrist, as is required by paragraph 1-32e of the enlisted separations regulation.  The applicant was afforded the opportunity to consult with legal counsel as is required by the applicable notification procedures defined in the regulation and the appropriate separation notification procedure was followed in his separation processing.   

3.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was given ample opportunity to overcome his problem.  The first documented counseling documenting his delusional disorder was his referral to mental health.  The subsequent counseling shows he was not compliant with medication requirements and was still apparently delusional.  His 10 February 2004 counseling indicates he attempted to bypass his chain of command to see the group commander.  The applicant claimed he had evidence of somebody trying to violate his privacy; however, he failed to provide proof to the first sergeant or other superiors because they would not believe him.  The applicant also refused to take his medication and although he disputes this claim, there is no evidence of record except the applicant's contention supporting his assertion to the contrary.  Further, he acknowledged the counseling at the time and apologized for his behavior.  

4.  The evidence of record further shows the applicant's chain of command complied with all regulatory notification requirements and afforded the applicant all rights to which he was entitled based on his separation processing under the provisions of paragraph 5-17, Army Regulation 635-200, based on the diagnosis and recommendation of competent medical authority.  As a result, there is no evidence that the command's separation action was the result of discrimination against the applicant based on his race, national origin, and/or age, or that it was arbitrary or capricious.  The command's actions in recommending the applicant's separation were based on the diagnosis and recommendation of competent medical authority, the examining psychiatrist, and were not arbitrary or capricious.   

5.  Based on his comprehensive evaluation of the applicant, conducted during the applicant's three-day hospitalization, the examining psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant with a delusional disorder within the meaning of Army Regulation 40-501, Army Regulation 635-200, and the DSM.  He also concluded that the applicant's diagnosed condition did not rise to the level that supported the applicant's separation processing through medical channels and recommended the applicant's administrative discharge under the provisions of paragraph 5-17, Army Regulation 635-200, because he believed that although the applicant's condition was not necessarily permanently unfitting with gross impairment in reality testing, it would cause significant defects in judgment, responsibility and reliability of the applicant and additional management problems for the commander.  

6.  However, given that regulatory guidance for disorders with psychotic features, which include delusional disorders with gross impairment in reality testing, supports referral to an MEB, absent specific written evidence of reality testing on the part of the examining psychiatrist it would be appropriate to refer the applicant to an MEB for evaluation.  If the applicant agrees to an MEB evaluation and the MEB determines his delusional disorder is/was unfitting, the applicant should complete processing through the PDES and be separated/retired by reason of physical disability based on the approved findings and recommendations of a PEB.  

7.  If the MEB determines the applicant's delusional disorder is/was not unfitting, under the medical retention standards outlined in Army Regulation 40-501, or if the applicant continues to refuse to be evaluated by an MEB, it would be appropriate to accept the findings and recommendations of the examining psychiatrist at the time that the applicant's delusional disorder did not rise to the level that supported medical processing through the PDES and that the applicant be administratively discharged based on the likelihood he would create additional management problems for his commander.

8.  If the MEB renders a fitness determination, or absent a contrary medical determination of unfitness from the MEB, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support changing the authority and reason for the applicant's separation and/or to support granting the requested relief. 

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

___X____  ___X____  ___X____  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by affording him the opportunity to be evaluated by an MEB.  If he agrees to an MEB evaluation and the MEB determines his delusional disorder is/was unfitting, he should complete processing through the Physical Disability Processing System and be separated/retired by reason of physical disability based on the approved findings and recommendations of a Physical Evaluation Board.

2.  If the applicant agrees to an MEB evaluation the Office of The Surgeon General should contact him and arrange, via appropriate medical facilities, a physical evaluation and, if appropriate, by referral to an MEB and an informal PEB.  The Office of The Surgeon General is directed to use appropriate invitational travel orders to accomplish the physical evaluation and, if necessary, the MEB and PEB.  In the event that a formal PEB becomes necessary, the applicant will be issued invitational travel orders to prepare for and participate in consideration of his case by a formal PEB.  All required reviews and approvals will be made subsequent to completion of the formal PEB.

3.  If the applicant refuses to be evaluated by an MEB and/or processed through the Physical Disability Evaluation System, or the MEB concludes his condition is/was not unfitting, the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant granting the requested relief or to change the authority and reason for his discharge, which was based on the diagnosis and recommendation of competent medical authority.




      _______ _   XXX_____   ___
               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)                                         AR20090013276



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090013276


2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1