MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            30 June 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999022701

	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:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. John P. Infante		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 discharge due to his inability to overcome a local bar to reenlistment be corrected to a medical discharge, and that he be given his Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits retroactively.  In a faxed header sheet addressed to the staff of the Board, the applicant adds “This is our agreement.  Please pay full amount, $23,500.00 plus 10 years interest.”  [The applicant is referring to costs he incurred in college, costs which he believes would have been covered under the MGIB if he had received a medical discharge.]

APPLICANT STATES:  While he was on active duty he developed Adult Manic Depressive (Bipolar Affective) disorder which was misdiagnosed as Adult Hyperactivity Disorder.  Due to the misdiagnosis he was prescribed a medication which actually worsened his depressive episodes.  In an attempt to self regulate his mood swings, he turned to alcohol, which led to several alcohol related incidents of indiscipline.  The applicant contends that he was unable to control his behavior due to his being prescribed the improper medication for his condition, a medication which actually worsened his bipolar mood swings.  He charges that his superiors in the Army “ruthlessly and relentlessly persecute[d] me until I broke” because a Congressional inquiry submitted by his father resulted in the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff issuing the officers in his chain of command letters of reprimand (LOR).  Those LOR’s were for giving him nonjudicial punishment for arriving late at a driving school he was required to attend due to his receiving a ticket, when he was not told by his superiors when the class started.  Because of the harassment he was being subjected to, along with his impaired ability to reason (brought on by his bipolar condition and improper medication), he allowed himself to be coerced into signing his bar to reenlistment.  He claims that he would not have signed those documents if he had known that he would lose his MGIB benefits.  After his discharge he was properly diagnosed as having a bipolar disorder and given proper medication.  Since then he has been drug and alcohol free and has completed all but one semester of college before his financial resources ran out.

In support of his application he submits a letter from a civilian psychiatrist who states that, in his opinion, the attention deficit disorder diagnosed by Army physicians was improper, that the proper diagnosis should have been bipolar disorder; that the medication prescribed to the applicant by Army physicians was inappropriate for bipolar disorder and actually worsened that condition; and that he has been treating the applicant for bipolar disorder.

The applicant also submits a rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) which show that he was initially denied service connection for attention deficit disorder, but based on the aforementioned letter from the civilian psychiatrist, granted him service connection and a 10 percent disability rating for bipolar disorder.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 July 1988.  In conjunction with his enlistment he was the subject of an entrance physical examination.  In that examination he admitted to having been treated by a psychiatrist for 6 months when he was in 3rd grade, but the records from the psychiatrist could not be located.  The applicant’s mother submitted a statement at that time attesting that the counseling was a family counseling and didn’t concern her son’s behavior.
On 3 November 1988 the applicant was treated for hip pain.  He reported that he had been attacked by 20 gang members while at a football game.

On 25 January 1989 he was treated for a laceration of his left wrist and alcohol abuse.  He had fallen while intoxicated, resulting in his wrist injury.  When he was admitted to the hospital he had a blood alcohol test (BAT) of .3, was admitted as an inpatient to monitor him for possible alcohol withdrawal symptoms, and was then referred to the Army Drug and Alcohol Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP), in which he was enrolled and subsequently completed.  A line of duty investigation was conducted on his injury and it was determined that it was not in line of duty since it was caused by his own misconduct.

On 12 April 1990 the applicant admitted himself to ADAPCP.  At that time he reported that he had been referred to ADAPCP after a driving while intoxicated arrest in April 1989 and had been admitted for alcohol detoxification as a result of that arrest.  He reported that he had abstained from drinking alcohol from the date of that detoxification until February 1990 when he resumed drinking to help deal with court-martial charges which had been preferred against him.  He was admitted to the Inpatient Psychiatric ward at that time.  He was reported as being “very talkative, somewhat dramatic and impatient.  He was in constant activity and fidgeted when he needed to be still.  He was easily distractible and had poor sustained attention.”  His discharge diagnoses were alcohol dependence, continuous, moderate, manifested by long history of entrenched alcohol use, despite wide-ranging consequences and prior treatment, with developed tolerance, and attention deficit, hyperactivity disorder, residual type.

On 28 June 1990 the applicant’s commander notified him of his intention to bar him from reenlistment.  The reason for the bar was the applicant’s acceptance of field grade nonjudicial punishment.  The applicant opted not to submit any matters in his own behalf and did not appeal the bar when it was approved.

On 18 July 1990 the applicant submitted a request for immediate discharge due to his perceived inability to overcome his local bar to reenlistment.  

That request was approved by the appropriate authority.  The applicant was then offered a separation physical examination, but declined.  Accordingly, he was honorably discharged on 25 July 1990.

The MGIB, as outlined in Title 38, United States Code, chapter 30, section l411(b), provides for soldiers who entered the service after 30 June l985, to be automatically enrolled into the MGIB and to contribute $l,200.00 during their first l2 months service, which is nonrefundable.  After completion of their service obligation, he or she is entitled to receive up to $300.00 per month educational benefits for 36 months.  The program is administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).  VA regulations specify that if a soldier is separated prior to the normal expiration of his or her term of service, the separation must be for hardship, medical disability or for the convenience of the Government to be entitled to benefits under the MGIB.  Also, individuals separated for hardship or other convenience of the Government separations must have served in excess of 20 months for an enlistment of less than 3 years, and in excess of 30 months for an enlistment of 3 years or more .  Soldiers who are separated for service connected disability are entitled to 1 month of educational benefits for each month of active duty served.  In all cases, the soldier’s service must be considered fully honorable.

Army Regulation 600-8-1, paragraph 41-8 states, in pertinent part, that if an existing prior to service (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 not service aggravated, the individual is not entitled to disability benefits from the Army. 

In the processing of this case an advisory opinion (COPY ATTACHED) was obtained from the Army Review Boards Agency medical advisor who stated that absent any military psychiatric diagnosis of bipolar disorder, there is no medical reason to change the applicant’s discharge.  The applicant was provided a copy of this advisory opinion and given the opportunity to respond.  No response was received from the applicant.

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.  The applicant has submitted a letter from a civilian physician who has opined that the applicant was misdiagnosed while he was in the Army, but has not provided any evidence to support his opinion.

2.  There is absolutely no record of the applicant complaining of mood swings or depression while he was on active duty.  Because of that omission, if he was in fact suffering from bipolar disorder at that time, it is understandable why he wasn’t diagnosed as having that condition.  His alleged attempts to self-medicate with alcohol would have further masked a bipolar disorder.

3.  However, regardless of whether the applicant suffered from attention deficit disorder or bipolar disorder, there is too much documentation which would lead the Board to believe that he had that condition when he entered on active duty.  The facts in the case are that the applicant had received psychiatric treatment as a child for which records could not be located; he was attacked by a gang when he was on active duty for about 3 ½ months; he was treated for alcoholism 5 ½ months after enlistment with a records BAT of .3; he was arrested for DWI and clinically detoxified from alcohol 9 months after enlistment; and he was again treated for alcoholism 1 year and 9 months after enlistment.  The close proximity of alcohol related problems to his enlistment, and the blood alcohol level recorded after those incidents (which denotes a progressive tolerance), leads the Board to believe that he had been drinking alcoholic beverages excessively prior to his enlistment.

4.  In addition, the applicant did not submit any matters in his own behalf when he was notified of his commander’s intent to bar him from reenlistment, he did not submit an appeal to the bar, he himself requested immediate discharge due to his perceived inability to overcome that bar, and he waived a separation physical examination.  There is no evidence or indication of coercion in that scenario, and there is no evidence that the applicant was mentally incompetent when he executed those documents.
 
5.  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

_jdp_____  _aao____  __jpi____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999022701	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990630	
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.	128.05	
2.	108.04	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.