MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

           BOARD DATE:           1 March 2000 
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999024901

	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.

	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Melinda M. Darby 		Member	
	Mr. John Saputo		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:  The mother of the former soldier, his guardian, requests, in effect, that his honorable discharge from active duty on 19 January 1978 be changed to a medical discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In essence, that the former soldier is of German decent and currently lives with her in Germany.  He entered on active duty with full use of his mental and physical faculties.  However, the former soldier did not fully understand some of the instructions that he was given due to language barriers.  The former soldier’s mother believes that his chronic mental health condition (paranoid schizophrenia) is due to the mental and physical abuse he received while in the military.  Further, she contends that he was forced into signing a document that he did not understand, therefore, he was not afforded an opportunity to receive a physical or psychiatric examination.   Additionally, she believes that his service records are incomplete and contain false entries.  She claims that his records do not contain the counseling statements that his superiors contend that he received.  The applicant submits in excess of 200 documents in support of the application on behalf of her son.  These documents essentially cover the period from 1977 through 1995, to include extracts from the former soldier’s military records, statements from German physicians, correspondence with military authorities, more than 150 documents from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), and the Board of Veterans Appeals, a letter dated 16 August 1999, from a friend, other letters from friends, teachers, instructors, and a statement that the applicant wrote on behalf of her son in support of the appeal.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  No contentions were made by counsel.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The former soldier’s military records show:

He enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 8 December 1977 for 3 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 71L (Administrative Specialist).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-1.

The available records contain Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) Form 871-R (TDP Counseling).  The purpose of that form was to record counseling data pertaining to trainees being considered for expeditious discharge under the Trainee Discharge Program (TDP).  This form shows that the former soldier was counseled on 
12 and 13 December 1977 due to his belligerent, hostile, and negative attitude.  He failed to respond to directives and instructions, repeatedly displayed disrespect and he required constant supervision. 

On 19-21 December 1977, and on 4 January 1977, the former soldier was counseled about his behavior and hostile attitude.  He continued to cause disruption and disharmony in the platoon during training.  On countless occasions he disobeyed or refused to follow instructions.  Even though his English was poor, his English speaking skills were not his main problem in adapting to the military environment, it was his negative attitude and hostile demeanor. 

On 4 January 1978, after the former soldier stated that he did not desire to remain in the service, his commander officially notified him that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of paragraph 5-39, Army Regulation 635-200, the Trainee Discharge Program (TDP).  The commander cited his negative attitude and the fact that he had been given every opportunity to improve.  

On 4 January 1978, the former soldier acknowledged notification of the commander’s intent to separate him.  He authenticated a statement with his own signature in which he stated that he did not desire to make a statement or to submit a rebuttal in his own behalf.  He also stated that he did not desire a separation medical examination.

On 9 January 1978, the intermediate commander interviewed the former soldier and recommended discharge.  That commander stated that the former soldier was very hostile towards anyone with authority.  He was very immature and showed a total lack of motivation.  Further, he stated that the former soldier did not possess the aptitude that was required to successfully complete basic training and that it was his opinion that the former soldier would never become a productive soldier.  

On 13 January 1978, the appropriate authority approved the separation recommendation and directed the issuance of a HD.

On 19 January 1978, he was honorably discharged under the provisions of paragraph 
5-39, Army Regulation 635-200, the TDP.  He had completed 1 month and 12 days of active military service.

On 13 February 1979, a DVA Rating Decision shows that the DVA determined the former soldier was not eligible for a disability rating due to his claim for a service-connected nervous condition.  The DVA decisional document shows that he suffered from a nervous disorder at age 17 prior to his short peacetime service. 

On 19 July 1979, the DVA made another rating decision that the former soldier’s schizophrenic condition was not service connected nor was it incurred or aggravated by military service.  However, on 23 August 1979, the DVA notified the family that a favorable decision had been made in his case.  On 29 October 1979, the DVA notified the former soldier that it’s prior notification on 23 August 1979 was in error and apologized for any inconvenience it may have caused.  His claim was still denied.  

In February 1985, and again on 25 July 1988, the Board of Veterans Appeals denied the former soldier’s claim of service connection for schizophrenia.  His psychiatric disorder was neither incurred nor aggravated by his peacetime service.

Title 10, United States Code, at chapter 61, provides for disability retirement or separation for a member who is physically unfit to perform the duties of his or her office, rank, grade or rating because of disability incurred while entitled to basic pay.  However, a disqualifying medical condition existing prior to entrance into active service is not a basis to determine eligibility for a medical discharge.
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.  In order to justify correction of a military record the former soldier or his legal representative must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record of the former soldier is in error or unjust.  The applicant and her son have failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement

2.  The former soldier authenticated a statement with his own signature in which he stated that he did not desire a medical examination prior to separation.  There is no evidence in his records to indicate that he was coerced into signing this statement and he has provided no probative evidence to the contrary. 

3.  The former soldier was adequately counseled while on active duty, to include during the discharge process.  These counselings were recorded on the appropriate forms.  There is no evidence of any false entries.   There is no evidence that indicates that the former soldier was abused or mistreated and the applicant, the mother, has submitted no convincing evidence to the contrary.

4.  Even though the former soldier’s English speaking skills were limited, the record clearly indicates that it was his negative attitude and hostility towards those in authority that interfered with his ability to adequately adapt to the military environment.

5.  There is no evidence of any medical condition, which rendered the former soldier medically unfit and justified physical disability processing.  His DVA record shows nothing to the contrary nor has the applicant or the former soldier provided any additional medical evidence to overcome the presumption of medical fitness at the time the former soldier was separated from active duty.

6.  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 in her son’s records.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__gdp___  __mmd___  __js____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024901	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000301	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON	A25.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	108.00	
2.	A01.01	
3.	A01.13	
4.	A93.21	
5.	A93.29	
6.