IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  25 January 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100012469 


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 earlier request for correction of the reason for his separation from an honorable discharge under the trainee discharge program (TDP) to a medical discharge.  

2.  He states there were a lot of errors in the investigation of his case.  He outlines his arguments in the three letters he submitted.

3.  He provides:

* three self-authored letters, dated 21 March 2010, 30 May 2010, and 
13 July 2010
* an appeal from the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Washington, DC, dated 20 October 2008
* a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* a DA Form 2 (Personnel Qualification Record - Part I)
* a DD Form 1966/5 (Record of Military Processing - Armed Forces of the United States)

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 AR20090017470 on 2 March 2010.  

2.  The applicant submitted three self-authored letters and an appeal from the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, VA as new evidence which were not previously considered by the Board.  Therefore, this new evidence warrants consideration by this Board.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 June 1980 at the age of 17.  

4.  In Section IV (Other Background Data), block 35c of his DD Form 1966/5, he marked “Yes” indicating he had been involved in the use, purchase, possession, or sale of marijuana, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), or any other harmful or habit-forming drugs and/or chemicals, except as prescribed by a licensed physician.  He marked “No” in block 35e indicating he had not been a patient (whether or not formally committed) in any institutions primarily devoted to the treatment of mental, nervous, emotional, psychological, or personality disorders.  

5.  On 1 July 1980, he was reassigned to Fort Sill, OK, under the one-station unit training (OSUT) program for completion of basic combat and advanced individual training for military occupational specialty (MOS) 15E (Pershing Missile Crewmember).  

6.  Block 17 (Civilian Education and Military Schools) of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record - Part II) shows he did not complete his 13-week OSUT at Fort Sill.  

7.  On 1 August 1980, he was counseled by his immediate commander for disqualification from the Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) due to drug abuse.  The counseling statement shows he had previously disclosed to his immediate commander that he had been heavily involved with drugs and that he was hospitalized for phencyclidine (PCP) abuse.

8.  On 11 August 1980, he was counseled by his platoon sergeant for sniffing black boot dye in a brown paper bag in the storage room of the barracks.  He was escorted to the hospital where the examining doctor recommended his referral to mental hygiene and release from the PRP.

9.  On 12 August 1980, he underwent a mental status evaluation wherein he related a history of abusive drug usage prior to entering the Army and further related an attempted suicide during a drug-related incident at Fort Myers, FL.  He also stated that he could not cope with military service and he wanted out of the Army.  The military physician diagnosed him as an individual with flat effect and poor insight and judgment.  The military physician also stated that there was 


no evidence of any primary psychiatric disorder; however, adequate emotional adjustment for continued military service was poor.  He strongly recommended the applicant be eliminated from the service in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 5 (Separation for the Convenience of the Government).

10.  On 12 August 1980, his immediate commander advised him that he intended to recommend his discharge from the Army under the provisions of 
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-33 (TDP).  The specific reason for the recommendation was that the commander was convinced the applicant was not mentally stable enough to remain in the Army.  His pre-service drug abuse had carried over into his military service and the counseling and guidance provided did not produce the desired result.  Continued effort to retain the applicant in the military would have only resulted in causing harm to him or others.

11.  On 14 August 1980, he was again counseled by his immediate commander regarding his incident of sniffing Kiwi edge dressing.  The counseling statement shows that he was confused at the time and stated he was still a drug addict, he was still having flashbacks and was unaware of what was happening around him, and that he had been previously hospitalized due to his drug addiction and attempted suicide.

12.  He was subsequently discharged on 28 August 1980 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-33f(2) by reason of "TDP - Marginal or Non-Productive."  He completed 2 months and 4 days of total active service.  Item 26 (Separation Code) of his DD Form 214 shows his separation code as “JET” and item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) shows the entry “Trainee Discharge Program (TDP) Marginal or Non-Productive.”  

13.  His DD Form 214 shows he was awarded the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16) and the First Class Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar.  

14.  On 21 March 2010, he submitted a letter addressed to the Director and Chairperson of the ABCMR in which he contends:  

* Basic training was 8 weeks (56 days) and he served in the military for 9 weeks and 2 days (65 days)
* Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-33 stated a Soldier must be in basic training when separation action is approved, but he graduated from basic training and he was awarded marksmanship badges for qualification with the M-16 rifle and grenade


* He never used drugs in the service and he was never hospitalized for PCP
* His DD Form 1966/5 shows he was never hospitalized for PCP 
* The only drug he ever used was marijuana and much of the drug issue was dramatized by his command
* He was discharged for medical reasons due to his mental health 
* The previous case report was plagiarized and the information was not cross-referenced 
* His discharge under the TDP was illegal

15.  In his 21 March 2010 letter, he also contends that the information in the ABCMR Record of Proceedings, Docket Number AR20090017470 was not true and contained contradictory statements:

	a.  CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:  He cited paragraphs 1, 4, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15.

   b.  DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:  He cited paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 7.
   
   c.  THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:  He cited paragraph 2 which states in part “the facts of his case were covered-up in 1980 because the Army needed to see a kid getting into a weapons of mass destruction/mutual assured destruction project….”  He contends this statement was not true and an error was made by this Board.  He stated the statement should read “that the Army found out a kid was in MOS 15E and 97B (Counter Intelligence Agent) weapons of mass destruction and counter intelligence after a mental health breakdown.”  He further contends that the Army tried to cover this up and did so until April 2008.  

16.  On 30 May 2010, he submitted a second letter addressed to the Chief of Congressional Special Actions Branch of the Army Review Boards Agency and the Director of the ABCMR in which he contends:

* The VA completed multiple medical assessments in April 2008 showing his mental trauma was triggered in the Army
* The timeline was violated by the U.S. Army discharge authority 
* He was told he was being discharged after basic training due to medical mental health issues
* He saw many horrific things at 17 years old during training in weapons of mass destruction
* He was chosen for primary MOS 15E and secondary MOS 97B when he was just 16 years old


* He went to the emergency room after attempting suicide by inhaling chemical boot dye from a bag because he was in great moral stress 
* Each doctor in the emergency room stated he should not have been in a weapons of mass destruction project at his age
* He spent many years in institutions, mental health wards, and he had multiple suicide attempts

17.  On 13 July 2010, he submitted a third letter addressed to the Director of the ABCMR.  He again contends there were a lot of errors in the investigation of his case and his discharge was 100 percent due to mental trauma.  He also contends that his DD Form 214 states marginal or non-productive performance, but it should have indicated a mental health medical discharge.  He stated that Army Regulation 635-200 had protocols and the TDP provided for the separation of service members who lacked the:

* Motivation - he graduated from basic training, but he had mental trauma as the records show
* Discipline - there was no discipline problems, no Article 15, and no drug test failure
* Ability - he entered the service with a normal mental profile and far above average testing; his ability was damaged due to mental trauma
* Aptitude - he tested high upon entering the service
* Productive - his tests were normal entering the service; he graduated from basic training, but mental trauma prevented him from performing in his MOS
* Counseling - he saw three doctors at Fort Sill and they all stated he suffered mental trauma

18.  In a 20 October 2008 appeal action from the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, it indicated that the VA Regional Office in St. Petersburg, FL denied the applicant’s claim for service-connection for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in March 2008.  The Board of Veterans’ Appeals remanded his case to the Regional Office via the Appeals Management Center in Washington, DC.  He did not provide any evidence showing the results of this action.  

19.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel from the Army.  Paragraph 5-33 of this regulation, in effect at the time, governed the TDP.  This program provided for the separation of service members who lacked the necessary motivation, discipline, ability or aptitude to become productive Soldiers or have failed to respond to formal counseling.  The 


regulation essentially requires that the service member must have voluntarily enlisted; must be in basic, advanced individual, on-the-job, or service school training prior to award of an MOS and must not have completed of more than 179 days of active duty on the current enlistment by the date of separation.  The regulation provided that Soldiers may be separated when they have demonstrated that they are not qualified for retention due to failure to adapt socially or emotionally to military life; cannot meet minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation, or self- discipline; or have demonstrated character and behavior characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service.

20.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. 
The regulation in effect at the time established SPD code "JET" as the appropriate code to assign Soldiers who were separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-33f(2), and established the narrative reason for separation for these members as "TDP - Marginal or Non-productive."

21.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) governs the evaluation of physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability.  The unfitness is of such a degree that a Soldier is unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating in such a way as to reasonably fulfill the purposes of his employment on active duty.

22.  Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service.  The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s service record is void of any evidence which confirms that an error or injustice exists in his case.  The previous case proceedings were based on his overall record of service and statements he provided. 


2.  It appears he may have misinterpreted the various options listed in Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-33.  The regulation indicated that a Soldier separated under TDP must have voluntarily enlisted, must have been in basic, advanced individual, on-the-job, or service school training prior to award of an MOS, and must not have completed of more than 179 days of active duty on the current enlistment by the date of separation.  

3.  The evidence of record shows he completed basic training, he was awarded marksmanship badges, and he was attending advanced individual training for MOS 15E.  At the time of his separation on 28 August 1980, he had completed
2 months and 4 days (65 days) of active service.  Therefore, he met the requirements for separation under the TDP in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-33.  

4.  During his TDP counseling on 1 August 1980, he disclosed to his immediate commander that he had been heavily involved with drugs and that he was hospitalized for PCP abuse.  

5.  Although he contends his DD Form 1966/5 confirms that he was never hospitalized for PCP; this was a form completed by himself and it does not support his contention that much of the drug issue was dramatized by his command.  

6.  His administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, paragraph 5-33, for TDP - Marginal or Non-Productive was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.

7.  He underwent a mental status evaluation prior to his separation; however, no evidence is available which supports his contention that he was discharged for medical reasons due to his mental health.  The military physician indicated there was no evidence of any primary psychiatric disorder; however, adequate emotional adjustment for continued military service was poor.  

8.  There is no evidence which indicates he suffered mental trauma which required processing through medical channels or that his military career was ended due to medical unfitness.  

9.  He states the VA assessed his mental condition in April 2008 and determined his mental trauma was triggered in the Army, but he provided no evidence to support this statement.  Additionally, the VA is not required to determine fitness for duty at the time of separation.  The Army must find a member physically unfit before he/she can be medically retired or separated.
10.  He has not presented sufficient evidence to show his discharge under the TDP was in error or unjust or that the narrative reason for his discharge should be changed from honorable to a medical discharge.

11.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.

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 AR20090017470, dated 2 March 2010.



      ________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)                                         AR20100012469



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100012469



8


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1