RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         14 March 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050011242


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Kathleen A. Newman            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Larry C. Bergquist            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Larry W. Racster              |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of his request that
his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) of 16 October 1974
be changed to a disability retirement.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that a medical report from his doctor
explains that the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) he suffers from has
existed since he was wounded in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN) in 1970.  He
claims he was never examined for PTSD while he was on active duty even
after he told the Army he was in bad health.  He claims he was only treated
for his wounds and the mental wounds were not addressed or treated.  He
states that with the problems he was having and the discharge he received,
his disability should have been recognized and treated at the time.

3.  The applicant provides a doctor's statement, dated 19 July 2005, in
support of his application.

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
AR20040005572, on 24 May 2005.

2.  During its original review, the Board found no evidence that suggests
the applicant suffered from a disabling physical/mental condition that
would have warranted his separation processing through medical channels at
the time of his discharge.  It also found insufficient evidence showing
that the applicant was unable to perform his military duties at the time of
his discharge.

3.  The applicant now provides a doctor's letter, dated 19 July 2005.  The
applicant's physician indicates that the letter is his clinical opinion of
the origin and severity of the combat related PTSD suffered by the
applicant.  The doctor states that the applicant suffered a gunshot wound
while serving in the RVN, as well as jungle rot and Agent Orange exposure.
The doctor indicates that like many veterans, the applicant's symptoms date
to his service in the RVN, but did not come to the attention and management
with medication until 2003.

4.  The applicant's record confirms he underwent a separation physical
examination on 16 October 1974 that is documented by a Report of Medical
Examination (SF 88).  During his pre-examination processing, the applicant
made the statement that he was in "bad health" and that as a result of
being shot through the neck and shoulder in the RVN, he had trouble
swallowing, turning his neck, and he experienced burning in his back.  The
Clinical Evaluation portion of the SF 88 indicates the applicant was found
normal in evaluated areas, to include the psychiatric area.  The examining
physician assigned the applicant a Physical Profile of 111111 and a
Physical Category of A.  He also found the applicant was qualified for
separation/retention.

5.  On 16 October 1974, the applicant was discharged under other than
honorable conditions, by reason of persistent and unauthorized absence
pursuant to Presidential Proclamation Number 4313.

6.  In 1975, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded the
applicant's discharge to a GD.

7.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement,
or Separation), then in effect, established the Army Physical Disability
Evaluation System (PDES) and set forth policies, responsibilities, and
procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier was unfit because of
physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office,
grade, rank, or rating.  Chapter 3 provided guidance on presumptions of
fitness.  It stated that the mere presence of 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 his or her office, grade,
rank, or rating.  Separation by reason of disability requires processing
through the PDES.

8.  Chapter 4 of the same regulation contains PDES processing guidance,
which includes evaluation by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) to document a
Soldier's medical status and duty limitations.  The MEB determines if a
Soldier does not meet retention standards, in which case the Soldier is
referred to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).  The PEB investigates the
nature, cause, degree of severity, and probable permanency of the
disability of Soldiers who are referred.  It also evaluates the Soldier's
disability against the physical requirements of his/her particular office,
grade, rank, or rating.  Finally, it renders findings and recommendations
to establish the eligibility of a Soldier to be separated or retired
because of physical disability.

9.  PTSD, an anxiety disorder, was recognized as a psychiatric disorder in
1980 with the publishing of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM).  The condition is described in the current DSM-IV, pages
424 through 429.  The Army used established standards and procedures for
determining fitness for entrance and retention and utilized those
procedures and standards in evaluating the applicant at the time of his
discharge.  The specific diagnostic label given to an individual’s
condition a decade or more after his discharge from the service may change,
but any change does not call into question the application of then existing
fitness standards.

10.  Title 38, United States Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permit the VA to
award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by
active military service.  An Army disability rating is intended to
compensate an individual for interruption of a military career after it has
been determined that the individual suffers from an impairment that
disqualifies him or her from further military service.  The VA, which has
neither the authority, nor the responsibility for determining physical
fitness for military service, awards disability ratings to veterans for
conditions that it determines were incurred during military service and
subsequently affect the individual’s civilian employability.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that he should be medically retired based on
his PTSD and the supporting letter from his doctor was carefully
considered.  However, the information provided is not sufficient to support
an amendment of the Board's original decision in this case.

2.  By law and regulation, the mere presence of 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 his or her office, grade,
rank, or rating.  The applicant’s military medical record provides no
indication that he suffered from a physical or mental condition that
rendered him unfit to perform his military duties at the time of his
discharge.

3.  The available medical records show that while the applicant was treated
for wounds he received in action, and that he believed he was in poor
health, there is no evidence that his injuries were permanently disabling.
Further, during his separation physical examination his psychiatric
clinical evaluation was normal, which indicates he suffered from no
disabling mental condition at the time.

4.  The 2003 PTSD diagnosis and the current doctor's letter provided by the
applicant, which traces the origin of the condition to the applicant's
service in Vietnam, do not call into question the Army’s application of the
fitness standards that existed at the time of the applicant's separation.
As a result, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting
the requested relief.

5.  The applicant's current treatment for PTSD by the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) does not establish entitlement to medical retirement
or separation.  The VA is not required to find unfitness for duty.
Operating under its own policies and regulations, the VA awards disability
ratings because a medical condition is related to service, i.e., service-
connected.  The VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his lifetime,
adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's
examinations and findings.  The Army must find unfitness for duty at the
time of separation before a member may be medically retired or separated.
As a result, given the differences in the two systems, while it is
appropriate for the VA to provide medical treatment for service-connected
medical conditions, this does not automatically entitle the applicant to a
medical separation or retirement from the Army.

6.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily
appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to
submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___KAN _  ___LCB _  __LWR__  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 AR20040005572, dated 24 May 2005.




                                  _____Kathleen A. Newman_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050011242                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/03/14                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1974/10/16                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |PP #4313                                |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |108.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]