BOARD DATE: 4 May 2010
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090018470
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 the Boards denial of his request to change his discharge under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) to a medical discharge.
2. The applicant states he was drugged and assaulted by fellow servicemen and taken to the hospital for his injuries. Before he was examined he was taken from the hospital by the same servicemen who had assaulted him earlier. This time he fought back and injured a specialist with an empty shell casing. He was then taken to jail where the psychiatrist interviewed him. He was still under the influence of drugs during that interview.
3. The applicant adds that there are no records of his having a psychological condition prior to his entry on active duty.
4. The applicant provides a Cumulative Record from the Montgomery Public School System.
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 AR20090004329 on 20 August 2009.
2. The applicants contention that he had no psychological problems prior to his entry on active duty and a copy of his Cumulative Record from the Montgomery Public School System is a new argument and document which was not previously considered by the Board and warrants consideration.
3. On 16 September 1981, an Army Europe (AE) Form 3087 (Report of Psychiatric Evaluation) was completed by a psychiatrist, a lieutenant colonel who was the chief of outpatient psychiatry. He wrote that the applicant was evaluated psychiatrically on 16 Sept 1981. Since entry into the service he has experience[d] considerable tension which is essentially related to the inability to escape the intensity of interpersonal relationships. Prior to coming into the Army he had similar difficulties but was able to cope by being by himself. Clinically the concern is with regards to a potential psychotic illness, if the stress continues.
4. On 21 October 1981, the applicant was discharged with a general under honorable conditions discharge under the EDP.
5. 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 (MEB). 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. Only those Soldiers determined physically unfit to perform their duties due to a medically disqualifying condition can be processed for medical discharge or retirement.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. It is evident that the applicants psychiatric history was provided by the applicant himself during his interview by the chief of outpatient psychiatry.
2. Since the applicant himself reported he was able to cope with his problems with interpersonal relationships by escaping them prior to entering the Army, it is reasonable to presume that there may be no record of civilian treatment for that problem.
3. Since the applicants problem with interpersonal relationships existed prior to his entry on active duty it would be considered to have existed prior to service. In addition, there is no evidence that he was determined to be medically disqualified. The psychiatrist stated that there was a potential for psychotic illness if the stress continued. The psychiatrist did not state the applicant had a medically disqualifying condition. Without a finding of medical disqualification, there would be no basis for referring him to an MEB. Without an MEB the applicant could not have been referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). Therefore, he could not have been given a medical discharge.
4. There is no evidence to support the applicants contentions that he was drugged, in a fight, or put in jail.
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 AR20090004329 dated 20 August 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) AR20090018470
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090018470
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD 2012 01249
Review of medical and therapy reports up to December 2006 evidenced complaints of sleep disturbances, irritability, decreased energy level, apathy, poor concentration and memory with some improvement of symptoms at times. Therefore the Board decided that the permanent rating recommendation is most appropriately based primarily on the April 2007 C&P examination and service treatment records close to separation with consideration of the psychiatry MEB NARSUM five months prior to separation. ...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD-2013-02068
The Board’s assessment of the PEB rating determinations is confined to review of medical records and all available evidence for application of the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) standards to the unfitting medical condition at the time of separation. The MEB narrative summary (NARSUM) exam (approximately 11 months prior to separation) documented that the mental status exam was normal and that he was compliant with his anti-depressant medication with no active...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01187
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 | CY2005 | 20050009568C070206
The applicant requests that his administrative discharge be changed to a medical separation. Counsel states the applicant's medical records show no psychiatric complaints until shortly before his expiration term of service (ETS) during his first enlistment. diagnosed him with Schizoid Personality manifested by social isolation and withdrawn behavior and recommended discharge under chapter 13 [Army Regulation 635-200] as unsuitable because of a character and behavior disorder.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004329
On 30 September 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge and directed that he receive a General Discharge Certificate. There is no available evidence of record showing that the applicant had applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The evidence of record shows the applicant voluntarily consented to discharge under the EDP.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120010188
He did not require any psych medications during the hospitalization and did not report any PTSD symptoms. The discharge note stated he was not reporting any PTSD symptoms at that time. Although he carried a diagnosis, at various times, of PTSD, Anxiety Disorder, and/or Adjustment Disorder, he almost routinely denied symptoms of the above and was not interested in treatment for same.
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00847
In this case the letter allows separate ratings for 1) post-concussive syndrome with subjective dizziness and memory and concentration problems; 2) headaches due to TBI; and 3) anxiety and depression due to TBI; rendering each in effect as separately unfitting conditions for purposes of the combined disability rating. A 10% rating for code 8045 was effective the day after the CI separated from service. While it is likely the CI did have PTSD while he was in service, there is no direct...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 01176-01
1171 (b) Board for Correction of Naval Record letter of 7 August 200 1 (1) BCNR File (2) Service record (3) Medical records (4) VA records Per your request for review of the subject response to reference documentation of the charges that led to non-judicial punishment was provided in this packet. ” As a result, the 1: 1 watch was discontinued, and the patient was returned to full duty with instruction to take the provider appointment. He also endorsed a history of at least two episodes of...
AF | PDBR | CY2012 | PD2012 01600
The PEB assigned a 10% rating for the conversion disorder, factitious disorder condition coded 9434; and listed pseudoseizures and malingering as related conditions.The VA assigned a 100% rating for partial onset seizures under an analogous 8910 code (epilepsy, grand mal); and a 10% rating for adjustment disorder with anxiety citing treatment for an adjustment disorder in 2001.The C&P examiner and VA neurology consultant both expressed uncertainty about the neurologic vs. psychiatric...
AF | PDBR | CY2009 | PD2009-00430
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...