MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

IN THE CASE OF:    

BOARD DATE:            18 February 1999
DOCKET NUMBER:    AC87-00184A
			    AR1999015448

	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. Gerald E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas N. Kuhn		Chairperson	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	
	Mr. James P. Steuve		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:  Reconsideration of his previous application to correct his records by removing entry “existing prior to AD but not aggravated by military service” from his DD Form 214 Certificate of Discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he had had no psychiatric problems prior to service and that in light of the VA granting him service connection for the condition it is appropriate to remove this entry.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 1 April 1988.

The applicant submits copies of his VA rating decisions granting entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric condition and to a total disability rating, a copy of his discharge and a copy of an Office of the Surgeon General (SGO) report of hospitalization.

The applicant's military records were partially lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire of 1973.  Information herein was obtained from reconstructed personnel records, VA records and copies of records from the applicant.

The applicant entered active duty on 29 March 1954.  He completed basic training having been seen for only minor physical complaints.  On 25 June 1954 he reported for food service school with complaints of nervousness.  On 2 July 1954 he was hospitalized for psychiatric observation due to these complaints.  The applicant was afforded the diagnosis of schizophrenic reaction, acute and transferred to a second hospital for follow-up care.  Following observation at the second hospital his diagnosis was converted to schizophrenic reaction, latent type with a determination that the condition had existed prior to service (EPTS) without service aggravation.  The applicant was honorably discharged by reason of physical disability, EPTS on 30 July 1954 with a total of 122 days of active service.

The VA first saw the applicant, for this condition, in June of 1955 when he suffered a “blow-up” during treatment for a hemorrhoidectomy.  He was hospitalized for a period of observation and care being diagnosed as having schizophrenic reaction, paranoid type with a predisposing factor of a schizoid inadequate personality. 

The applicant was originally denied service connection for this condition based upon the EPTS finding.  Upon subsequent appeal the applicant was granted a 30 percent evaluation schizophrenic reaction which upon further appeal was upgraded to a total evaluation.

Army Regulation 635-40 provides guidance and policies for physical evaluation for retention, retirement and separation.  Paragraph 3-3, provides that according to accepted medical principles, certain abnormalities and residual conditions exist that, when discovered, lead to the conclusion that they must have existed or have started before the individual entered military service.  Chapter 5 provides for separation of personnel due to conditions that existed prior to enlistment, were not aggravated by the period of service and for which the individual waived evaluation by a PEB.

Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph B-10, states that hereditary, congenital and other EPTS conditions frequently become unfitting through natural progression and should not be assigned a disability rating unless service aggravated complications are clearly documented or unless a soldier has been permitted to continue on active duty after such a condition, known to be progressive, was diagnosed or should have been diagnosed.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel from active duty.  Paragraph 5-11 provides for the early separation (within the first six months) of those individuals who were not qualified under procurement medical standards, who manifested symptoms of medical problems that would have made them not qualified under procurement medical standards or who became not qualified prior to entry.

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

1.  While the VA under its own rules and regulation has granted the applicant service connection and a determination the EPTS was not shown this finding is not binding on the Army.

2.  In light of the very short time, less than three months, between the applicant’s entry on to active duty and the first manifestations of his condition, in concert with no findings of a significant event to have either precipitated or aggravated his condition, a determination that the condition existed prior to service without aggravation is appropriate.

3.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

4.  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

___TNK_   ___JPI__   ___JPS__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC87-00184A 
AR1999015448	
SUFFIX	a	
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990218	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	Deny	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	145.02/995	
2.	145.02/998	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.