BOARD DATE:	  7 July 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100025643 


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 advancement to pay grade E-5 and the reason for her medical retirement to be shown as due to post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and right knee injury. 

2.  The applicant states she presented evidence to the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) of a diagnosis of PTSD but they refused to look at it.  She was discouraged and threatened to not appeal the PEB's decision.  The director who wrote her medical board evaluation sexually harassed her.  He was fired by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and cited and fined by the medical licensing board.

3.  The applicant provides copies of medical evaluations and statements utilized in the development of her DVA claim.

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 enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 21 May 1992 and she was ordered to initial active duty for training (IADT) on 3 November 1992.  She was subsequently discharged from the USAR on 22 January 1993 with service uncharacterized.  The reason for her discharge is not contained in the available records.

3.  She again enlisted in the USAR on 8 April 1993 and she entered active duty for training (ADT) on 21 April 1993.  She completed her training and she was awarded military occupational specialty 58B (chemical operations specialist).  She was released from ADT on 8 September 1993 and she transferred back to her Reserve unit.  Between her release from ADT and 9 July 1997 she was twice reassigned to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training) for unsatisfactory participation with subsequent voluntary reassignment to other drilling units.

4.  The record contains a 7 April 1995 medical assessment/treatment record that shows she had a contusion of the right knee and right great toe, swelling and tenderness of the great toe, mild tenderness of the right knee, and minimal tenderness of the low back.  There is no follow-up treatment record for these conditions in the available records.

5.  A Standard Form (SF) 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 8 November 1998, shows no complaints or findings of any abnormalities.

6.  On 30 July 1999, the applicant was ordered to ADT with her unit for duty in
El Salvador.

7.  On 2 August 1999, the applicant was treated for complaints of vomiting.  At that time she stated that she had discontinued taking her anti-depressant and anti-psychotic medications prior to going on ADT because "I did not think I needed them these two weeks.”  The applicant became increasingly hostile, belligerent, and uncooperative, which led to her being transported back to the United States for further testing and evaluation.

8.  On 16 August 1999, an informal line of duty (LOD) investigation was initiated due to conflicting statements from the applicant in reference to her use of anti-depressant and anti-psychotic medications.

9.  On 27 August 1999, the Director, Mental Health Services, Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, submitted a letter stating that the applicant was admitted to the Memphis VA Medical Center on August 9, 1999, for treatment of acute psychotic symptoms.  A thorough evaluation, including psychological testing, multiple psychiatric interviews, and case presentation in front of the senior psychiatrist all confirmed a diagnostic impression of paranoid schizophrenia with acute exacerbation.  Psychotic symptoms first arose in an extreme form when the applicant was on active duty in El Salvador with her Reserve unit.  The history she provided the VA failed to reveal that she was taking any anti-psychotic medication before this acute exacerbation despite what is mentioned in her medical records.  Her prognosis is currently guarded. 

10.  In a second letter the Director stated "Initial assessment here revealed an acutely agitated person who was hyper-alert, guarded, and suspicious with frequent angry outbursts when she perceived that people were failing to understand her.  She complained bitterly of some long-standing sexual harassment from some of the male members of her unit.  A more detailed, comprehensive evaluation, including multiple psychiatric interviews, diagnostic psychological testing, and careful observation during the course of her hospitalization revealed a diagnostic picture consistent with schizophrenia, paranoid type."

11.  On 27 July 2000, the applicant was notified that a formal LOD investigation was being initiated for her diagnosis of schizophrenia.  In that notification it was stated that the reason for the formal investigation was the contradiction of her telling the doctor when she was initially treated that she had been taking anti-psychotic medications, and later denying ever having taken any anti-psychotic medications.

12.  On 28 August 2000, a formal LOD was completed.  The Investigating Officer determined that the applicant’s paranoid schizophrenia was incurred in the LOD and stated that there was no evidence that the applicant had ever taken anti-psychotic medications prior to going on ADT.

13.  In the processing of that formal LOD investigation, a statement was obtained from the physician who had made the entry that the applicant had stated she had been taking anti-psychotic medications prior to ADT.  In that statement, the physician stated that he stood by everything he wrote in the applicant’s health records.  The physician added “Whatever the condition she has now was present even before she came to El Salvador.  Line of duty should be denied.  It seems she is trying to make Uncle Sam responsible for her condition when the Army had nothing to do with her condition.”

14.  The applicant’s diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia was approved as having been incurred in the LOD.

15.  On 3 May 2002, a PEB convened and determined that the applicant was physically unfit due to paranoid schizophrenia, with associated depression requiring hospitalization, medication, and psychotherapy.  The PEB recommended that the applicant be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) due to physical unfitness.  The applicant agreed with the PEB's findings and recommendation.

16.  On 20 May 2002, the applicant was placed on the TDRL with a 50 percent (%) disability rating percentage.  She was permanently retired on 17 June 2005.

17.  The applicant's post-service medical records show she was diagnosed as suffering from PTSD in September 2003.  The diagnosis was based on her statements indicating that she was sexually assaulted in basic training and she had experienced a significant incident that occurred in El Salvador during her 1999 ADT.

18.  In an Arkansas Psychological Services evaluation, it is noted that the applicant had been treated for PTSD since September 2003.  In a letter, dated 3 October 2006, it is stated that a review of her service medical record shows a diagnosis of schizophrenia.  However, following her recovery from the acute symptoms associated with her trauma in El Salvador, she has not displayed any symptoms of schizophrenia.  The attending physician offered the opinion that the schizophrenia diagnosis was in error and it should be disregarded.  The subsequent evaluations continue the diagnosis of PTSD. 

19.  A Bartlett Psychiatric Center, Bartlett, TN letter, dated 9 October 2006, states the applicant had been treated for PTSD since May 2006.  The Bartlett Center afforded her the diagnoses of PTSD, major depression, and panic disorder.

20.  Statements provided in support of the applicant's DVA application for PTSD state that the applicant's unit was on a humanitarian mission in El Salvador.  One Soldier reported that on the first night in country the women's barracks were looted by female El Salvadorians and another Soldier reported that the woman's barracks was attacked two nights in a row by [male] El Salvadorian Soldiers.  A third statement stated that the barracks wall had holes in them and that
El Salvadorian Soldiers would look through the holes.  On one occasion
El Salvadorian Soldiers entered the barracks causing significant alarm and 

resulting in the posting of guards for security.  All of the statements indicate the conditions were very bad, that it rained every day, and that because almost everyone they encountered in El Salvador was armed and the U.S. personnel were not allowed weapons they were constantly in fear for their lives.  They stated that there were a number of dead horses and cows in the streets and that there were starving children begging for food everywhere they went, which was very troubling to all of the members of the unit.

21.  A DVA memorandum, dated 28 May 2008, states a review of the applicant's service medical record shows she was treated for an injury to her right foot and ankle in May and June of 1993.  She had magnetic resonance imagery (MRI) done in 2003, 2006, and 2008 that all show chrondromalacia of the knee and that this condition was most likely the result of the injuries she sustained on active duty.

22.  The available record does not contain any indication or evidence that the applicant was considered for or ever promoted to the pay grade E-5.

23.  Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, provides disability retirement or separation for a member who is physically unfit to perform the duties of his/her office, rank, grade or rating because of disability incurred while entitled to basic pay.

24.  Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3, provides standards for medical retention.  It states that for an individual to be found unfit by reason of physical disability, they must be unable to perform the duties of their office, grade, rank or rating; and that the performance of duty despite impairment would be considered presumptive evidence of physical fitness. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was on ADT in the pay grade E-4.  The applicant's record does not show and she has not provided any evidence that shows she was considered for or promoted to the pay grade of E-5.

2.  Records show the applicant was treated for right knee problems in 1993 and in 1995 for separate injuries.  However, neither of these injuries was reported as having any residuals on the medical evaluation prior to her 1999 ADT.  Further, there is no evidence that she complained of problems with her knee during her brief period of ADT in 1999. 

3.  The applicant reports that during medical evaluations or treatment, she was sexually assaulted in basic training, suffered long-term sexual harassment by members of her unit, and was sexually harassed by the doctor who did her medical board evaluation.  However, the applicant has not provided and the record does not contain any evidence that she was assaulted or that if she was sexually harassed that she made her command aware of this.

4.  The applicant was on ADT only three days before the diagnosis of schizophrenia was made.  There were no complaints of a knee problem at this time or at any period during the PEB processing.

5.  A diagnosis of PTSD was not made until over a year after the applicant had been placed on the TDRL and 3 years after the initial diagnosis of schizophrenia. The applicant has not provided any evidence to support her contention that she presented evidence to the PEB of a diagnosis of PTSD.

6.  The applicant's diagnosis of schizophrenia was made by a trained psychiatrist and reviewed by several other psychiatrists during her treatment following her return from El Salvador and prior to the PEB.  The fact that the physicians who treated the applicant after her discharge do not agree with the Army's diagnosis does not negate the diagnosis of schizophrenia that resulted in her separation.

7.  There is no evidence to support the applicant's contentions and no rationale to support the implied conclusion that those alleged circumstances warrant the requested relief.

8.  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.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100025643



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100025643



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1