MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           2 February 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999022178

	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.

	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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 he received a medical retirement.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was discharged without a proper medical board. He requests the Board consider his hernia, his deformity of the 5th finger, his nerves and his eyes.  Supporting evidence is as listed on the attachment to the DD Form 149.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 29 November 1977.  

On 25 April 1982, the applicant was diagnosed as having no mental disorder other than a borderline personality disorder and placed on medication.  

On 17 March 1983, the applicant was awarded a temporary physical profile because of a fractured 5th metacarpal. 

On 29 July 1983, the applicant was relieved from active duty upon completing his normal expiration term of service.  He waived a separation medical examination in writing and was given a 111111 (no significant limitations) physical profile.

On 20 October 1983, the applicant enlisted in the Selected Reserve.

In January 1984, the applicant was ordered to active duty for training (ADT) to attend the Materiel Control and Accounting Specialist Course.  He was hospitalized on 28 March 1984 for schizophreniform disorder but on 6 April 1984 he was given a 111111 profile with the annotation that he had borderline intellectual functioning.  He was hospitalized 16 – 23 April 1984 for a hernia repair and was given a temporary profile for the healing surgical incision.  He successfully completed the course in May 1984.

On 21 August 1984, he received a letter of appreciation “…for the outstanding job you did while on active duty for training…The weekend work you performed enabled us to minimize the time we had to reduce customer support…”

From 2 February – 20 March 1986, the applicant was hospitalized in a civilian facility and discharged on Thorazine.  On 29 April 1986, the VA awarded the applicant a 0 percent rating for his epigastric hernia repair and no service connection was granted for his “nervous condition” which was diagnosed as “schizophrenia, paranoid, subchronic” with “mixed personality disorder.”

On 13 June 1986, the applicant completed the 2-week resident phase of the Medical Supply Specialist Course.  He achieved course standards.  Comments included “this individual is capable of performing the duties of his/her SSI and grade and has demonstrated the ability to do so.  No limitations were observed during this reporting period.”

On 6 October 1986, the applicant reenlisted in the Selected Reserve.  He acknowledged that he met the immediate reenlistment criteria as a member of the U. S. Army Reserve (USAR).  

On 4 April 1987, the applicant completed the 2-week resident phase of the Primary Leadership Development Course.  Comments included “…certifies that this individual has demonstrated the academic level of excellence and leadership ability to be a first-line supervisor…”

On 23 August 1987, the applicant’s commander requested he undergo a medical fitness evaluation because he exhibited unusual behavior, such as hearing voices and feeling that people were out to get him, that interfered with his expectations as a soldier.  On 26 September 1987, a medical fitness evaluation found him unqualified for retention and summarized his diagnoses as actively having auditory hallucinations, having visual blurring and spots in the front of his eyes, and abdominal spasms.  

The applicant apparently made an Inspector General (IG) complaint on 6 June 1988 concerning several subjects, one of which was a violation of his profile during his 1988 annual training (AT).  The IG noted that prior to his 1988 AT his commander was aware that he should be excused from the field and it was the commander’s intent not to send him to the field.  However, the applicant indicated to the IG that he was upset about not being permitted to go to AT and indicated he needed the money.  Consequently, it was decided to let him go to AT but that he would remain in garrison.  Another complaint was an improper delay in the processing of his separation and the processing of his request for a medical board.  Another complaint was about his not being utilized.

On 28 June 1988, the applicant elected discharge from the USAR due to a medical condition which rendered him disqualified for further retention.  Discharge orders were published 12 August 1988.  Apparently as a result of his IG complaint, these orders were revoked on 1 September 1988.  He was finally discharged on 30 November 1988.

On 19 May 1990, the applicant applied to the Board for a change in his discharge
but withdrew his application.  His application was returned without prejudice.

In the original processing of this case, advisory opinions were obtained from the Office of the Surgeon General and the U. S. Army Physical Evaluation Board (SEE ATTACHED).

Copies of these opinions were provided to the applicant in 1999.  He rebutted these opinions.  He noted that he broke his 5th metacarpal in January 1983 and was given a profile for no heavy lifting or physical training.  However, he was required to perform work in the field in March 1983 and re-injured his hand.  In 1996, the VA awarded him 10 percent disability for his hand.  He was diagnosed as having borderline personality disorder and placed on medication.  He was rated 100 percent by the VA.  He was hospitalized for hernia repair and the VA has awarded him 20 percent for that condition.  The regulation states a soldier who is not physically qualified to perform his or her duties worldwide under field conditions is unfit.  The IG report shows he was not physically or mentally qualified to perform his duties.  It also states that an acute infection or sudden developments occurring while the member is in military service will be regarded as service incurred or aggravated.  

Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability.  The regulation defines “physically unfit” as unfitness due to physical disability.  The unfitness is of such a degree that a soldier is unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating in such a way as to reasonably fulfill the purpose of his employment on active duty.  Although the ability of a soldier to reasonably perform his or her duties in all geographic locations under all conceivable circumstances is a key to maintaining an effective and fit force, this criterion will not serve as the sole basis for a finding of unfitness. 

Army Regulation 40-501 governs medical fitness standards for retention and separation.  In pertinent part, it states that a personality disorder may render an individual administratively unfit rather than unfit because of physical disability.  Interference with performance of effective duty in association with this condition will be dealt with through appropriate administrative channels.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) states that the essential features of Schizophrenia are a mixture of characteristic signs and symptoms that have been present for a significant portion of time during a          1-month period with some signs of the disorder persisting for at least 6 months.  The essential features of Schizophreniform Disorder are identical except the total duration of the illness is at least 1 month but less than 6 months.  A diagnosis of Schizophreniform Disorder should be qualified as “provisional” because there is no certainty that the individual will actually recover from the disturbance within the 6-month period.  If the disturbance persists beyond 6 months, the diagnosis would be changed to Schizophrenia.  If the diagnosis of Schizophreniform Disorder is changed to Schizophrenia, it means the individual has had Schizophrenia for at least 6 months.  

Title 38, U. S. 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 opinions, it is concluded:

1.  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.

2.  The Board concludes that the applicant’s medical conditions of a broken 5th metacarpal, repaired hernia, and eye condition never made him unfit for duty.  He broke his finger in 1983, he had a hernia repair operation in 1984 and an eye condition (for which there is no evidence the VA has even given him a disability rating) the onset of which is not known.  However, none of these conditions caused him to be unable to complete 2-week resident phases of two different military courses and for which he received favorable comments about his abilities to perform his duties as late as June 1987.  In addition, the applicant stated to the IG in 1988 that one of his concerns was that he would not be called to AT for that year, an indication to the Board that he believed he was physically capable of performing AT duties.  The applicant cannot have it both ways – complain that he may not be called to AT and then complain that he is physically unfit to perform AT duties.  

3.  The applicant was diagnosed with a borderline personality disorder while he was in the Regular Army in 1982; however, this condition was treated by medication and when he separated in July 1983 he had a profile of 111111 (no significant limitations).  In any case, a diagnosis of personality disorder will render a soldier liable for administrative separation, not physical disability separation.

4.  The applicant was first diagnosed with and hospitalized with a diagnosis of schizophreniform disorder while he was on ADT in February 1984.  He was diagnosed with schizophrenia in 1986.  Because the signs of the disorder persisted for at least 6 months (from February 1984 to 1986) the earlier diagnosis of schizophreniform could then be changed to schizophrenia.  Because it was schizophrenia, it meant that the disorder had already been entrained for at least 6 months prior to the schizophreniform manifestation.  That further means its inception as a disease process began sometime between 29 July 1983, when he was released from active duty with no evidence of the disease and 28 October 1983, 6 months prior to his 1984 hospitalization.  This was a period in which he was not in a pay status.

5.  In addition, the Board concludes his schizophrenia did not make him unfit for duty at the time of his discharge.  Despite the findings of the medical evaluation board in September 1987, he and his commander felt he was fit for duty when he requested and his commander granted his request to attend AT in 1988. Although he was limited to garrison duty and not sent to the field for an extended period of time, the regulation states that while the ability of a soldier to reasonably perform his or her duties in all geographic locations under all conceivable circumstances is a key to maintaining an effective and fit force, this criterion will not serve as the sole basis for a finding of unfitness.

6.  Contrary to the applicant’s contentions in his rebuttal to the advisory opinions, the Board concludes the IG report shows he was qualified to perform his duties as late as 1988.  In addition, his schizophrenia was not a “sudden development” and so does not automatically fit the definition of service incurred or aggravated.  

7.  The rating action by the VA does not necessarily demonstrate an error or injustice on the part of the Army.  The VA, operating under its own policies and regulation, assigns disability ratings as it sees fit.  Any rating action by the VA does not compel the Army to adjust its discharge accordingly.

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

__cmf___  __jea___  __le____  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999022178	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000202	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.