BOARD DATE:	 28 October 2014 

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140004902 


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 correction of his record to show continuation on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL), retention on active duty, appointment as an officer, promotion to lieutenant colonel, and receipt of back pay and allowances and/or damages of several million dollars.

2.  The applicant states that if a formal hearing is deemed necessary it should be scheduled after 25 October 2014, the date of his release from imprisonment.  He also states the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) should have accepted the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) recommendation to continue him on the TDRL rather than discharge him with physical disability separation pay.  

	a.  He also contends that if this had happened the following results would have been obtained – 

* he would have remained on the TDRL for up to 5 years
* been restored to active duty
* his reenlistment status would have changed
* he could have been treated in Army hospitals if he still needed treatment
* he would have remained on active duty and been promoted in an enlisted status and qualified for an officer appointment under the Army Green to Gold Program
* he would have completed the requisite officer courses 
* he would have been promoted to lieutenant colonel 


	b.  He also contends that, since it is too late to actually restore him to the TDRL, he should be granted service credit and pay and allowances based on periodic promotions and longevity.  He should be restored to active duty as a lieutenant colonel on 5 March 2015.

	c.  He agrees to consider an out of court settlement and invites the Board to make an offer.
  
3.  The applicant provides, in addition to his self-authored, legalistic brief (approximately 19 pages –summarized above), the following – 

* his time table for significant events in his supposed military career
* demands for various types of damages
* various service record documents including the MEB and PEB recommendation and decision documents that led to his discharge with disability severance pay

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 Regular Army on 6 July 1989.  He completed training as a personnel administration specialist, was stationed in Germany, and was advanced to specialist, pay grade E-4 on 1 November 1990.  

3.  In January 1993, he was hospitalized at Fort Ord, California because he was hearing voices and was quite paranoid.  He responded well to medication and was placed on the TDRL.

4.  On 13 June 1994, his periodic psychiatric evaluation noted that the applicant become employed by the U.S. Postal Service.  He was doing okay at work, but despite medications he was still troubled by auditory hallucinations and paranoia.  The doctor noted, however, that the applicant was, "able to appreciate that these voices do originate from inside of his head."  The MEB recommended continuation on the TDRL but also noted that the applicant was competent for pay purposes.

5.  On 5 August 1994, an informal PEB rated the applicant's disability at 10 percent and recommended his separation with disability severance pay.  The applicant was notified of the PEB's decision and of his rights including his rights to appointed counsel and to appear before a formal PEB. 

6.  The applicant concurred with the PEB's finding and recommendation on 22 August 1994.  He was removed from the TDRL and discharged on 
9 September 1994.

7.  In a March 1999 unsuccessful appeal to the ABCMR to change his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code to allow him to reenlist, the applicant argued that, at the time of his separation, he was simply suffering from situational stress as the result of breaking up with his girlfriend.  

8.  In February 2011, he repeated his request to change his RE code so he could re-join the Army and asked for a formal hearing.  He was informed that his reconsideration request was too late and that the Board decided when a formal hearing was necessary.  

9.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rated at least 30 percent.  Section 1203 provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years service and a disability rated at less than 30 percent.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  No medical evidence has been presented by the applicant to demonstrate an injustice in the handling of his case.

2.  The applicant was informed of his rights to appear before a formal PEB and to be assisted by appointed counsel.  However, he concurred with the PEB and was separated with disability severance pay.  

3.  There is no medical evidence of record to support the applicant's contention that he was treated unfairly.

4.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of the request.
5.  Based on the available evidence the actions by the Army in this case were proper, and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.

6.  There being no medical basis for granting any kind of relief the applicant's other requests are moot.

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)                                         AR20140004902





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140004902



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1