MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            19 May 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999014834

	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	
	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Robert G. Hinkle		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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 his general discharge be changed to a medical discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his difficulties in adjusting to military life were due to his psychiatric problems that existed prior to his enlistment which was not taken into consideration prior to his separation.

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

The applicant entered active duty on 22 October 1986 as an equipment records and parts specialist.

The applicant went AWOL on 18 February 1987 and remained AWOL until he as apprehended by civil authorities in Illinois and was returned to military control on 4 April 1987.

On 8 December 1987 the applicant was placed in the hands of civil authorities pending civil charges and was released on 9 July 1988.

In October 1988, the applicant began receiving numerous counseling statements and nonjudial punishments (NJP) for instances of failure to go to his prescribed appointed place of duty, failure to obey a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer and AWOL (14 days) 

The applicant’s medical records show that he was admitted to the hospital on 19 October 1988 and was diagnosed as having a conversion disorder and histrionic personality and was released on 26 October 1988.

On 6 December 1988, the applicant underwent a mental evaluation which diagnosed the applicant as having a conduct disorder and immature personality traits.  The psychiatrist also indicated that the applicant had problems adjusting to military environment, avoidant behavior, somatic complaints, attitude, immaturity, coping with stress and motivation.  Consequently, the applicant was cleared for action deemed appropriate by his commander.

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 16 December 1988 and was found qualified with a 111111 physical profile.

On 22 December 1988, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his rights to a hearing before a board of officers and representation by counsel and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 3 January 1989, the commander submitted his recommendation to separate the applicant under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He based his recommendation on the disciplinary action against the applicant and the applicant’s inability to follow lawful orders and his disruptive duty performance.

On 25 January 1989, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 1 February 1989.  He had a total of 1 year, 
6 months and 9 days of creditable service and had 270 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

In the processing of this case, a staff advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was obtained from the Department of the Army Review Boards Agency (DARBA) medical advisor.  The applicant was provided the opportunity to rebut the advisory opinion.  However, he fails to do so.  The medical advisor indicated that the applicant was admitted to the hospital for one week (19-26 October 1988) with diagnoses of conversion disorder and histrionic personality.  He further indicated that a follow up evaluation was conducted on 6 December 1988 by a psychologist who noted diagnostic impressions of conduct disorder and immature personality traits.  He further indicated that under the provisions of AR 40-501, chapter 3, personality and adjustment disorders, while they render an individual administratively unfit, are conditions that are not unfitting because of physical disability.  The medical advisor concluded that these conditions are not causes for referral to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and there is no medical reason to change the applicant’s discharge.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of this regulation, in effect at the time, provides for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when in the commander’s judgment the individual will not become a satisfactory soldier; retention will have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order and morale; the service member will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation will continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely.  Service of soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 2-2b, as amended, provides that when a member is being separated by reason other than physical disability, his 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 fit.

Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 3-3b(1), as amended, provides that for an individual to be found unfit by reason of physical disability, he must be unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating.

Title 10, United States Code, chapter 61, provides disability retirement or separation for a member who is physically unfit to perform the duties of his officer, rank, grade or rating because of disability incurred while entitled to basic pay.

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(s), it is concluded:

1.  The applicant did not have any medically unfitting disability, which required 
physical disability processing at the time of his separation.

2.  While the applicant was diagnosed as having a conduct disorder and immature personality traits, his medical condition was not medically disqualifying/unfitting for retention at the time in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501.  Therefore, there was no basis to separate him for physical disability.

3.  The foregoing conclusions are supported by the opinion of the DARBA Medical Advisor.

4.  Notwithstanding the applicant’s thirteen contentions regarding his medical and psychological status, the evidence of record clearly indicates that competent medical authority determined that the applicant was qualified for separation.  Likewise, he was administratively discharged in accordance with applicable laws and regulation with no indication of any violation of his rights.

5.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

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.  It should be noted that the mere presence of an impairment of the fact that a person is able to enlist in the service before the impairment is detected, does not, in itself, constitute service connection or a right to a medical separation.

8.  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

JNS_____  RGH____  RWA____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999014834	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990428	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19890201	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 110		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.