MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:.

	BOARD DATE:           12 May 1999        
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11101
				   AR1999023749

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		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:  In effect, disability retirement and that a locally imposed bar to reenlistment be removed from his records.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he should not have been barred from reenlisting because the conduct which resulted in the bar was the result of “psychiatric problems…caused by a head injury.”  He notes that the Army “misdiagnosed” his condition and that it was not until civilian doctors “ran the test to find the scar tissue in [his] brain that caused the hydrocephalus” and that since a shunt was inserted in 1987 he has been fine.  He maintains that if he had been properly diagnosed and had not received “substandard care” he would have been “medically discharged with the appropriate salary and benefits.”  He states that the VA granted him an 80 percent disability rating “due to [his] head injury an accompaning [sic] problems.”  (Note:  The applicant provided no documents to support his contentions and records maintained by the VA were not available.)

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

He entered active duty on 19 January 1973 and successfully completed basic and advanced individual training.  In June 1973 he was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

The applicant’s file contains a 24 June 1975 psychiatric evaluation, which indicates that he “has been followed by the Department of Psychiatry and Neurology for evaluation of explosive, assaultive behavior” and that his first contact with the department occurred on 3 April 1975 “as an out-patient.”  The 
3 April 1975 “evaluation revealed the individual to be a personality disorder, and to be experiencing much difficulty adjusting to the structured environment and the authoritarian figures in the Army.”  The report notes the applicant was admitted to “Ward 4A” of Womack Army Hospital at Fort Bragg, on 4 April 1975 “after experiencing explosive behavior toward his wife….”  A “psychometric evaluation” conducted while the applicant was an inpatient failed to show evidence of any psychosis.

The report states the applicant continued to be seen on an outpatient basis following his release from the hospital to determine if there were any neurological problems, which precipitated the applicant’s “explosive, assaultive behavior.”  The June 1975 report noted the applicant began complaining of dizziness, headaches, blurred vision and confusion “following head trauma that had occurred after his Ward 4A evaluation.”  It also noted that he was admitted to Womack Army Hospital again on 13 May 1975 after his spouse stabbed him in the chest during an altercation.  Ultimately it was concluded the applicant met retention standards, and there was no psychiatric disease or defect warranting disposition through medical channels.  The applicant was determined to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.
On 10 December 1975 the applicant underwent another psychiatric evaluation at his commander’s request because the commander was contemplating initiating a local bar to reenlistment.  The evaluation concluded the applicant suffered from a mild to moderate character disorder but once again noted that there was no evidence of psychiatric disease or defect warranting disposition through medical channels.

That same day, 10 December 1975, the applicant’s commander initiated a local bar to reenlistment.  The commander noted the applicant had “been a marginal soldier since his assignment” and that it was “primarily due to his inability to adjust to authority and his explosiveness when confronted with criticism.”  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the bar and elected not to make any statements in his own behalf.

On 13 February 1976 the applicant was honorably discharged at the conclusion of his enlistment contract.  He was serving in pay grade E-4 at the time and had completed 3 years and 25 days of active Federal service.

His DA Form 2 (personnel qualification record), rendered on 8 August 1975, indicates the applicant had a physical profile of 1-1-1-1-1-1 and a physical category code of “A” indicating no medical concerns or conditions.

The applicant indicates that subsequent to his separation from active duty the VA granted him a service connected disability rating of 80 percent.

Army Regulation 601-280 states that only personnel of high moral character, personal competence, and demonstrated adaptability to the requirements of the professional soldier’s moral code will be reenlisted.  The fact that a person may be issued an honorable or general discharge for the current period of service does not prevent initiation of a bar to reenlistment.  A bar to reenlistment may be initiated without regard to a person’s ETS or his reenlistment intent although normally a bar should not be initiated during the last 30 days before the ETS date.

Army Regulation 40-501, which outlines the standards of medical fitness for military personnel, states, in effect, that personality disorders may render an individual administratively unfit rather than unfit because of physical disability.  Interference with performance of effective duty in association with these conditions will be dealt with through appropriate administrative channels.

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.

Army Regulation 40-501, at paragraph 3-3a, provided, in pertinent part, that performance of duty despite an impairment would be considered presumptive evidence of physical fitness.

Title 38, United States 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.  Furthermore, unlike the Army the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings.

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.  Although the applicant maintains that the issues which resulted in his bar to reenlistment were the result of a misdiagnosis following a head injury, the Board notes that his domestic problems and “explosiveness” were identified as early as April 1974, prior to the date of any head trauma.  Additionally, his continued performance of duty until his separation from active duty in January 1976 raised a presumption of fitness which he has not overcome by evidence of any unfitting, acute, grave illness of injury concomitant with his separation.

2.  The evidence of record indicates that although the applicant may have suffered from a personality disorder he did not have any medically unfitting disability, which required physical disability processing.  Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability retirement or separation.

3.  A rating action by the VA does not necessarily demonstrate any error or injustice by the Army.  The VA, operating under its own policies and regulations, assigns disability ratings as it sees fit.  Any rating action by the VA does not compel the Army to modify its reason or authority for separation.

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

___gdp_  ___aao__  ____jea_  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-11101/AR1999023749	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990512	
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. 108.00		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.