BOARD DATE:	  28 June 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110025144 


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 to upgrade his under other than honorable conditions discharge (UOTHC) to a general discharge.

2.  The applicant states that the new evidence consists of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determination that he is service connected for paranoid schizophrenia rated at 100 percent (%) and that the character of his discharge is not a bar to receiving benefits.  He would like the discharge changed so that he can receive State of Wisconsin benefits.

3.  The applicant provides in support of his request copies of:

* his VA decisions, dated 5 August 2011, 5 December 2011, and 12 December 2011
* a letter from Dr. Maureen L____ of Portage County Health and Human Resources, dated 6 October 2009
* a self-authored statement received by the VA on 29 September 2010
* prior decision by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), dated 27 January 2011 decision

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 ABCMR in Docket Number AR20100018266, on 27 January 2011.

2.  The original case reported that:
	a.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 September 1975.  He received nonjudicial punishment (NPJ) under Article 15, Uniform Code Military Justice (UCMJ) eight occasions.

	b.  The applicant's unit commander notified him of pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 13-5a(1), for unfitness – frequent incidents of a discreditable nature.  He consulted with legal counsel, waived hearing by a board of officers, and he did not submit statements in his own behalf.

	c.  A 13 July 1977 mental status evaluation determined his behavior was normal.  He was alert and oriented.  He displayed a level mood.  His thinking process was clear and normal and his memory was good.  There was no significant mental illness.  He was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  He had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.  He met the retention standards prescribed in Chapter 3, Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness).

	d.  The applicant was discharged on 2 September 1977 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-5a(1) based on unfitness – frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities, with issuance of an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.  He completed 1 year, 11 months, and 6 days of total active service with 4 days of time lost.

	e.  Four letters from his family members who attested that he did not show any signs or symptoms of mental disorders or substance abuse until he entered the service.  He has received psychiatric help over the years since his discharge.  An April 1982 psychological report stated he was diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia disorder, residual type.  A final summary indicated second and third diagnoses of passive-aggressive dependent personality with marked antisocial features and a history of drug abuse.

	f.  Mental health center summaries, dated August 1980 and March 1981, provided diagnoses of psychotic reaction.

3.  New information submitted with the current reconsideration request and warranting Board consideration consists of the following:

	a.  The doctor at the county mental health center notes the period for the first 2 years following his discharge from the service was marked by chaotic behavior typified by homelessness, and drug and alcohol abuse.  She also notes that the applicant had a previous diagnosis of multi-drug dependency following his discharge.  She insists that his misconduct in the service and his alcohol and drug abuse are symptoms of mental illness.  She criticizes the fact that the mental status evaluation did not go in depth as to the causes of his misconduct.

	b.  The VA extended the applicant service-connected benefits based upon the doctor's opinion.  The latest decision noted "…There is a clear indication that you function at an improved level when you are consistently taking your medications.  However you have demonstrated a recurring pattern of not taking your medications unless you are under the supervision of a treating physician.  Therefore, more weight has been given to your private treatment records regarding your evaluation as they are more indicative of your overall level of functioning…."

4.  Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 310 and 331, 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.  There is no medical evidence that the applicant had any medical/mental condition that affected his behavior to the extent his misconduct should be considered beyond his control.  Thirty years after the fact one doctor opines that his in-service misconduct and his post-service alcohol and drug abuse were symptoms of mental illness and she seems to not even consider the possibility that his current mental health problems are the result of that substance poly abuse.

2.  The fact that the VA, in its discretion, has awarded the applicant a disability rating is a prerogative exercised within the policies of that agency.  It does not, in itself, demonstrate the existence of any medical problem while the applicant was in the service.  There is no evidence of any such mental health problems while the applicant was on active duty.

3.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  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 AR20100018266, dated 27 January 2011.



      __________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)                                         AR20110025144



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110025144



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1