MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            4 February 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-10880
                                              AR1999016502

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

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Lee Cates 		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That he be medically retired from the Army Reserve.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was honorably discharged due to Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) that was aggravated by routine duties as a reservist and further exacerbated by the improper actions of his commander.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  Counsel is silent on the issues.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

During the period 8 September 1978 to 23 August 1979, the applicant served in the Army National Guard.

The applicant enlisted in the Army Reserve on 2 June 1983.  He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 76Y (Unit Supply Specialist).

On 16 September 1987, while at the place of his civilian employment as a landscaper, the applicant was in the vicinity of an electrical explosion when a manhole cover fell onto electrical cables.

On 17 November 1990, on a physical examination conducted for the purpose of retention in the Army Reserve, the applicant indicated “I am in good health”.  Further, medical authorities found him to be “qualified for USAR service”.  It was noted that he was overweight by the standard table, but after being taped was found to be acceptable.

On 15 October 1994, the applicant extended his enlistment for a period of one year.

On 15 May 1995 and 23 April 1997, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decisions denied the applicant service-connection for PTSD.  The decisions indicated that service-connection may be granted for a disease which began during active military service or for an injury incurred during active military service or active duty for training.  Additionally, service-connection may be granted for specific diseases or conditions which are presumed to have been incurred during service.  Service-connection may also be granted for conditions which existed prior to service if the condition is shown to have been aggravated by service.

On 23 October 1995, the applicant was honorably discharged based on the expiration of his term of service.

On 19 November 1998, the Medical Advisor to the Army Review Boards Agency opined (COPY ATTACHED) that there was no direct cause-effect relationship established in relating his diagnoses to military service.  Further, there is no documentary evidence that working as a unit supply specialist aggravated his conditions.  His discharge was correct and appropriate.  The applicant was provided a copy of this opinion and did not submit a rebuttal.

Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 2-2b, as amended, provides that when a member is being separated by reason other than physical disability, their continued performance of duty creates a presumption of fitness which can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that he was unable to perform his duties or that acute grave illness or injury or other deterioration of physical condition, occurring immediately prior to or coincident with separation, rendered the member unfit.

Title 10, United States Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member  who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rated 30 percent disabling.

Title 38, United States 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.  Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual’s medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency. 

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion, it is concluded:

1.  Medical evidence of record shows the applicant’s medical problems occurred while he was not on active duty or under the control of the Army Reserve.

2.  There is no evidence that these problems were aggravated by his performance of Unit Supply Specialist duties.

3.  On two occasions, the VA denied the applicant service-connection for his medical problems.

4.  Medical authorities have opined that his medical problems neither occurred on nor were aggravated while serving on active military service.

5.  There is no evidence that the applicant’s unit commander exacerbated his condition by improper actions.

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 the aforementioned requirement.

7.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

JHL_____  AAO____  VBC____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						       Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-10880  AR1998016502	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990204	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19951023	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 138-178, Ch 4, paragraph 4-8	
DISCHARGE REASON	Expiration of Term of Service	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.538	PD Discharge	
2.338	Retirement	
3.	Improper action by commander	
4.		
5.		
6.