IN THE CASE OF:	   

		BOARD DATE:	  18 December 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140005243 


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 an earlier request for removal of documentation from her Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) database that:

* erroneously shows she has a psychological/psychiatric condition
* shows she has been awarded a 50-percent disability rating

2.  Further, she requests removal of a DA Form 261 (Request for Records and Official Statement of Service from the Adjutant General) from her OMPF that bears a service number other than hers.

3.  The applicant states, in effect:

	a.  The denial decision is in error and she reiterates her original contentions.

	b.  One of her DD Forms 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows she has no physical disability and another DD Form 214 shows she has a physical disability and she was discharged with severance pay.

	c.  The denial letter states she has not submitted any documentation showing a wrong service number, but she did submit a DA Form 261 showing the wrong service number.  Her service number is WA8221XXX.


	d.  The denial letter failed to mention her many awards, her medical history form showing she had public relations assignments in the Army, and her many accomplishments in the Army.

	e.  She is unaware of the medical evaluation board (MEB) and physical evaluation board (PEB); she never signed a form that indicated she had a mental illness.  She does not lie.

	f.  The denial letter incorrectly stated she made a religious complaint in March 2001; it was March 2000.

	g.  She was never stationed at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and she never received any psychiatric treatment.

	h.  When she went to the VA to see if she had any health benefits, the VA informed her she had a 50-percent disability rating, but she refused it because she is an honest person.

	i.  When she provided new evidence it was returned to her.

	j.  She has no mental illness/condition and she was medically fit for duty.

4.  The applicant provides 14 handwritten pages, dated 5 February 2014, reiterating her original contentions.  She also provides the following documents that were previously considered by the Board in her original application:

* DA Form 261
* service personnel records
* service medical records
* college transcripts
* VA medical records
* letters from her physicians
* letters of commendation and appreciation

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 AR20130005372, on 7 January 2014.

2.  The applicant provided a DA Form 261, dated 10 March 1970, which shows her service number as WA8212XXX.
3.  The applicant's DD Form 4 (Enlistment Contract – Armed Forces of the United States) shows her service number as WA8221XXX.  She enlisted in the Women's Army Corps for a period of 3 years on 26 June 1962 and she was awarded military occupational specialty 711.20 (Clerk Typist).  On 27 January 1965, she was honorably discharged for the purpose of immediate reenlistment after completing 2 years, 7 months, and 2 days of active service.  The DD Form 214 issued to her at the time shows her service number as WA8221XXX.  This form does not list any type of disability.

4.  She reenlisted on 28 January 1965 for a period of 3 years.

5.  Her records contain a DA Form 8-275-3 (Clinical Record Cover Sheet) and associated Standard Form 502 (Clinical Record – Narrative Summary), which show she was hospitalized at Letterman General Hospital, Presidio of San Francisco, CA, from 18 August to 17 October 1966.  She was diagnosed as having the following condition that was deemed to have incurred in the line of duty and had not been previously diagnosed:

Schizophrenic reaction, acute, undifferentiated type, severe; manifested by markedly inappropriate affect, loosened associations, especially manifested in any attempts to concentrate and carry on any mental tasks, autistic withdrawal with feelings of depersonalization, delusional thinking, ideas of reference and pathologic concern over "blue eyes."

6.  As a result, she was assigned a temporary physical profile and temporarily placed on restricted duty.

7.  She was honorably discharged on 27 January 1968.

8.  She again enlisted in the Women's Army Corps for a period of 3 years on 24 April 1969.

9.  Her records contain a DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record) which shows she was hospitalized as a patient in the Mental Health Clinic, Walter Reed General Hospital, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, DC, from 3 July to 20 August 1969.

10.  Her records contain a Standard Form 502 which shows she was hospitalized at Martin Army Hospital, Fort Benning, GA, from 30 January to 13 April 1970.  She was diagnosed as having the following condition that was deemed to have been incurred in the line of duty:

Schizophrenia, paranoid type acute and chronic, moderate.  Manifested by excessive hostility, severe ideas of reference, inappropriate anger, auditory hallucinations, responds very well to medication and social limit setting.  Predisposition, moderate.  Precipitation stress – minimal, routine military duty.  Impairment for further military duty, moderate.  Impairment for social and industrial capacity moderate.

11.  She was assigned a temporary physical profile and discharged to duty with profile limitations.  She was reassigned to Fort Sam Houston, TX.

12.  The applicant's records contain a DA Form 8-118 (Medical Board Proceedings) and an associated Standard Form 502 which show she was hospitalized at Brooke General Hospital, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, TX, from 1 May to 10 June 1970 to undergo an MEB.  She was admitted via the Mental Health Consultation Service because of increased feelings of depression, inability to function in her unit, and feelings that she could not tolerate the Army any longer.  It noted she had been hospitalized on three previous occasions and had been prescribed a variety of medications for the treatment of her condition.  She was diagnosed as having the following condition that was deemed to have incurred in the line of duty:  "Schizophrenic reaction, paranoid, chronic, severe, in partial remission; manifested by autism and paranoid ideations."

13.  In view of the amount of time she had been in the service and the number of hospitalizations she had required, as well as her borderline functioning, the MEB felt she should be medically separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation).  The MEB noted she would continue to experience difficulty in her future social and industrial adjustment to civilian life, equivalent to a disability rating of "slight."

14.  As a result, the MEB determined she was medically unfit for further military service in accordance with current medical fitness standards and recommended her referral to a PEB for further disposition.  The applicant acknowledged she had been informed of the approved findings and recommendations of the board and indicated she did not desire to continue serving on active duty.  The applicant was granted a permanent change of station to her home of record to await further orders.

15.  Her records contain a DA Form 199 (PEB Proceedings) which shows her case was considered by an informal PEB that convened at Fort Sam Houston, TX, on 6 July 1970.  The PEB considered the diagnosis recorded by the MEB and determined her condition rendered her unfit for continued service because of physical inability to perform the duties of her office, rank, or grade.  The PEB further determined her condition was incurred or aggravated while entitled to basic pay, permanent, and not the result of intentional misconduct or willful neglect or incurred during a period of unauthorized absence.

16.  Her records contain a DA Form 1361 (Recommended Findings of PEB), dated 6 July 1970, which shows the recommended findings of the PEB were as follows:

* she was physically unfit for military service
* her disability –

* was incurred while entitled to receive basic pay
* was the proximate result of the performance of military service
* was not due to misconduct or willful neglect or incurred during a period of unauthorized absence
* was not a direct result of armed conflict
* was not caused by an instrumentality of war

* she was awarded a combined disability rating of 10 percent
* she was recommended for separation from the service with severance pay

17.  On 7 July 1970, the applicant acknowledged that she had been advised of the recommended findings of the PEB as indicated above and had received a full explanation of the results of the recommended findings and her legal rights pertaining thereto.  As a result, she concurred with the findings and recommendations of the PEB and waived her right to a formal hearing of her case.

18.  On 20 October 1970, she was honorably discharged.  The DD Form 214 for this period shows:

* her service number as WA8221XXX
* her final duty station as Brooke General Hospital, Fort Sam Houston, TX
* the narrative reason for separation as Physical Disability
* the authority for her separation as Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 
5-8e(3)
* her separation program number (SPN) as 273
* she received severance pay in the amount of $4,859.40
* her disability rating was 10 percent


19.  The applicant's records contain and she also provided a VA Form 21-6796b (Rating Decision), dated 20 February 1975.  This form shows she filed a claim for an increase in her VA disability rating because she felt she should be more than 30-percent disabled based on her history of having many jobs, always as a typist, and never longer than 1 month.  Her life was in disarray and she was unable to accurately report about her lifestyle due to variable memory.  Her prognosis for improvement was minimal.  She appeared to be more than 30-percent disabled, but she appeared to be able to work as a typist if she chose to do so.  She was granted an increase in her disability rating to 50 percent based on a diagnosis of schizophrenic reaction, paranoid type, competent.

20.  Army Regulation 600-8-104 (Army Military Human Resource Records Management) prescribes Army policy for the creation, utilization, administration, maintenance, and disposition of the OMPF.  Appendix B (Documents Authorized for Filing in the OMPF and/or Interactive Personnel Electronics Records Management System), Table B-1 (Authorized Documents), shows documents associated with MEB's and PEB's are filed in the performance and service folders of the OMPF.

21.  The purpose of maintaining the OMPF is to protect the interests of both the U.S. Army and the Soldier.  In this regard, the OMPF serves to maintain an unbroken, historical record of a Soldier's service, conduct, duty performance, and evaluation periods and any corrections to other parts of the OMPF.  Once placed in the OMPF, the document becomes a permanent part of that file and will not be removed from or moved to another part of the OMPF unless directed by an appropriate authority.

22.  Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Physical Disability Evaluation System and 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.

23.  Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, provides the Secretaries of the Military Departments with authority to retire or discharge a member if they find the member unfit to perform military duties because of physical disability.

24.  Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permits the VA to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service.



25.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, prescribed the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or control of the Army.  This regulation established standardized policy for preparation of the DD Form 214.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that her service number is incorrect on her DA Form 261, dated 10 March 1970, appears to have merit.  Therefore, it would be appropriate to correct her service number on this form to show the service number as shown on her 1970 DD Form 214.  There is no basis for removing this form from her OMPF.

2.  The applicant also requests removal of the documentation from her OMPF and VA records which show:

	a.  she has a psychological/psychiatric condition; and

	b.  that she has been awarded a 50-percent (presumably, VA) disability rating.

3.  The evidence of record does not support the applicant's contention she never received any psychiatric treatment.  The evidence clearly shows she was diagnosed with schizophrenia and she was hospitalized and treated on at least four occasions while serving in the Army.

4.  The evidence of record does not support the applicant's contention that she was unaware of the MEB and PEB.  The evidence shows she underwent an MEB which recommended her referral to a PEB.  The PEB found her unfit due to schizophrenic reaction, paranoid type, chronic, and she agreed with the PEB findings.  As a result, she was honorably discharged by reason of disability with severance pay.

5.  The documents that appear in the applicant's OMPF are properly filed and she failed to provide any evidence showing they are erroneous.  Therefore, there is no basis for removing them.

6.  Since the VA does not fall within the purview of the ABCMR, there is no basis for granting her request to remove documents from the VA database.




BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

___x____  ____x___  ____x___  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant partial amendment of the ABCMR's decision in Docket Number AR20130005372, dated 7 January 2014.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by deleting the current service number shown on her DA Form 261 and replacing it with the service number shown on her 1970 DD Form 214.

2.  The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to removing documentation from her OMPF and VA records which show she was diagnosed with a psychological/psychiatric condition and that she was awarded a 50-percent VA disability rating.



      _______ _   _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)                                         AR20140005243



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140005243



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1