BOARD DATE:	  15 May 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110022994 


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, in effect, a change of her narrative reason for discharge to show she was medically discharged.  

2.  The applicant states she was not given the opportunity to go before a medical board prior to expiration term of service (ETS).  She was diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) after 9 years of service and she was in a medical holding company almost a year without being given a medical board; however, she was offered the option to ETS.   

3.  The applicant provides medical treatment records in support of her application.  

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 record shows the applicant initially enlisted in the Regular Army on 
19 July 1990.  She was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 71L (Administrative Specialist).  She was promoted to sergeant/E-5, on 
2 February 1996, and this is the highest grade she attained while serving on active duty.  

3.  The record is void of medical treatment records and of a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation processing.  It does contain a U.S. Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM) memorandum, dated 25 November 1998, which shows the applicant’s request for separation under the provisions of paragraph 5-3, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), by reason of Secretarial Authority, was approved and she was accordingly discharged on 3 March 1999.  

4.  The record also contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) issued to the applicant upon discharge on 3 March 1999.  It confirms the applicant was discharged under the authority of paragraph 5-3, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of Secretarial Authority.  

5.  The applicant provides three Standard Forms (SF) 600 (Chronological Records of Medical Care) that shows she was treated for depression and suicidal ideation between 1 and 10 December 1997.  The last SF 600, dated 
10 December 1997, indicates the applicant was diagnosed with AXIS 1 PTSD.  The examining physician indicted the applicant would be returned to the Continental United States (CONUS) for further assessment and treatment.  

6.  The applicant also provides an SF 88 (Report of Medical Examination) and an SF 89 (Report of Medical History) documenting her separation medical processing on 2 November 1998.  These documents indicate the examining physician noted the applicant suffered from PTSD and other diagnosed conditions.  The examining physician did not indicate any of the conditions the applicant was suffering from rendered her unfit for further service and finally assigned her a PULLES of 111121and a Physical Category B, and found her medically qualified for retention/separation.

7.  The applicant further provides a Memorandum from Headquarters, Dwight David Eisenhower Army Medical Center, Fort Gordon, Georgia, dated 
16 January 1998, which was prepared by a psychiatry resident and approved by the Chief, Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry Service.  The findings in this memorandum indicate the applicant met retention standards and suffered from no psychiatric disease warranting disposition through medical channels.  Finally, it recommends that the applicant be returned to duty. 
8.  The applicant also provides a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) rating decisions issued between 1999 and 2011.  These indicate the applicant was initially denied a disability rating for PTSD in 1999.  In 2007, she was granted a 50 percent disability rating for PTSD, effective 22 September 2006, which was later increased to 70 percent for PTSD and a major depressive disorder on 
3 October 2011.  

9.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES).  It 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.  If a Soldier is found unfit because of physical disability, this regulation provides for disposition of the Soldier according to applicable laws and regulations. 

10.  Chapter 3 of Army Regulation 635-40 contains guidance on standards of unfitness because of physical disability.  It states, in pertinent part, that the mere presence of an impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability.  In each case it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier reasonably may be expected to perform because of her office, grade, rank, or rating.

11.  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.


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for the narrative reason for discharge to be changed to medical discharge has been carefully considered.  However, the evidence is not sufficient to support her claims.  

2.  The mere presence of an impairment does not, in and of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability.  In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier reasonably may be expected to perform because of her office, grade, rank, or rating.  



3.  The record is void of a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge processing.  However, it does contain a memorandum confirming the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of Secretarial Authority was approved by PERSCOM.  It also contains a properly constituted DD Form 214 that identifies the authority and reason for separation.  These documents carry with them a presumption of regularity in the discharge process.  

4.  The medical evidence provided by the applicant shows she was diagnosed with and treated for various illnesses while serving on active duty, including PTSD; however, the evidence fails to show these conditions were sufficiently disabling to disqualify her from further service or to support separation processing through medical channels, as evidenced by her separation medical examination and the 16 January 1998 memorandum from her resident psychiatrist.  These documents confirm the applicant met retention standards and suffered from no psychiatric disease warranting disposition through medical channels.  Absent evidence indicating the applicant suffered from a disabling medical condition that supported separation processing through medical channels at the time of discharge there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief. 

5.  The applicant is advised that the VA is the appropriate agency to provide her medical treatment and compensation for service connected medical conditions that were not found permanently disabling at the time of discharge.  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.  The VA can evaluate a veteran throughout her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings.  However, these changes do not call into question the application of fitness standards applied by military medical authorities at the time of discharge.  

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)                                         AR20110022994



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110022994



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1