MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            1 July 1999    
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999016101

	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. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. Fred K. McCoy		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 records be corrected to show that he was promoted to the rank of sergeant, that his discharge for unsuitability be voided, that he was retained on active duty for 3 months in order for him to complete his 2 year induction, and that he was medically retired.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he passed the entrance physical examination prior to entering on active duty and had no physical defects at that time.  When he was in the Army he was discharged without any explanation.  Since then he has had continuing health problems, problems which had their origin while he was on active duty.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records were partially destroyed in the fire at the records repository.  His remaining military records show:

He was inducted on active duty on 17 March 1953.  On 27 April 1953 he was referred to mental hygiene and was diagnosed as mentally defective and having a schizophrenic reaction, latent type, chronic.

On 14 September 1954 he was convicted by a summary court-martial for failure to obey a lawful order.

On 4 October 1954 he was the subject of a neuropsychiatric evaluation.  He was diagnosed as having a schizoid personality, chronic, severe, manifested by flat emotions, lack of energy, inability to concentrate and pay attention, and a marked inadequate adjustment to society.  The psychiatrist recommended that the applicant be separated due to unsuitability.

The applicant appeared before a board of officers on 25 October 1954 which had been convened to determine whether he should be separated due to unsuitability.  The board of officers found that he was not dependable or reliable, and he was unable to follow instructions and orders.  The board of officers also found that he was unsuitable for military service because of a lack of physical stamina, character and behavior disorders, mental deficiency, apathy, and enuresis.  The board of officers recommended that he be given a general discharge.

That recommendation was approved and the applicant was issued a General Discharge Certificate on 29 December 1954.

On 27 August 1986 this Board upgraded the applicant’s discharge to fully honorable based on the fact that the applicant had a personality disorder.

Army Regulation 600-8-1, paragraph 41-8 states, in pertinent part, that if an EPTS condition was aggravated by military service, the finding will be in line of duty.  If an EPTS condition is not aggravated by military service, the finding will be not in line of duty, EPTS.  Specific findings of natural progress of the pre-existing injury or disease based on well established medical principles alone are enough to overcome the presumption of service aggravation.  

Army Regulation 635-40, the regulation which governs physical evaluation boards (PEB’s), paragraph 4-19b, states that a PEB may decide that a soldier’s physical defect was EPTS, but must then determine whether the condition was aggravated by military service.  If the PEB determines that a soldier has an unfitting EPTS condition which was service aggravated, the PEB must determine the degree of disability that is in excess of the degree existing at the time of entrance into the service.  The method of determining the percentage of disability to be awarded in such cases is outlined in appendix B, item B-10 of this regulation.  

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 office, 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 and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant was initially diagnosed as having a schizophrenic reaction a month and 10 days after his induction on active duty.  The close proximity of that diagnosis to his induction is clearly indicative of an EPTS condition which would not warrant a medical retirement or discharge.

2.  The board of officer’s findings that the applicant was not dependable or reliable, he was unable to follow instructions and orders, he lacked physical stamina, he demonstrated character and behavior disorders, he was found to be mental deficient, and he was apathetic, are all indicative that the applicant’s performance did not warrant promotion and that he warranted discharge prior to the completion of his induction.  Therefore, the Board finds no reason to recommend changing his rank or his period of active service.

3.  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_____  _fkm ____  _sk _____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999016101	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990701	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.05	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.