MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           24 November 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999025494

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Robert G. Hinkle		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 discharge be changed to a disability retirement.

APPLICANT STATES:  That the physical disabilities he had made it impossible for him to perform his duties.  Instead of considering this fact, the military simply implied he would not perform his duties due to a personality disorder and discharged him.  He provides his VA rating decision as supporting evidence.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  That the applicant served in the infantry.  Given the nature of his disabilities, along with the duties required of an infantryman, it would appear unlikely that he would have been physically able to continue with his military service.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 November 1992.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman).  He completed the basic airborne course and was assigned to the 82d Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC.

On 25 August 1994, the applicant was admitted to the Alcoholism Rehabilitation Center, U. S. Air Force Medical Center, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH.  The Clinical Resume noted in the military history section “…his drinking behavior has not gotten him into trouble with the Army.  He describes himself as having problems at work and that he is uncomfortable with his fellow workers…”  The past medical history section noted “significant for a torn cartilage in his right knee…he has had “reconstructive surgery”…has frequent headaches…”  The consultations section noted “Orthopedic Surgery was consulted to assess the patient’s right knee…The patient attended Physical Therapy for approximately one week.  At this time, the patient felt that it was not to his benefit to stay, and because he was able to partake in physical activities, such as football and volleyball, the physical therapist agreed that therapy was no longer indicated…the patient underwent neuropsyche testing…preliminary results suggest cluster B personality disorders and particularly narcissistic and/or borderline and/or antisocial personality disorder…”

On 3 October 1994, a mental status evaluation diagnosed the applicant with Borderline Personality Disorder, Severe.

On 27 October 1994, the applicant completed a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation.

On 28 November 1994, the applicant’s commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5-13, Personality Disorder.
On 28 November 1994, the applicant consulted with counsel and acknowledged notification of the action.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be discharged with an Honorable Discharge Certificate. 

On 5 January 1995, the applicant was discharged, with an honorable characterization of service, in pay grade E-3, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5-13, personality disorder.  He had completed 2 years and 2 months of creditable active service with no lost time.

In February 1998, the VA awarded the applicant service-connected disability for residuals, right knee trauma (10 percent); tinnitus, bilateral (10 percent); patellofemoral syndrome, left knee (10 percent); and mechanical thoracic back pain (10 percent).

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5, paragraph 5-13, sets the policy and prescribes procedures for separating members with a personality disorder (not amounting to a disability) that interferes with assignment to or performance of duty when so diagnosed by a physician trained in psychiatry and psychiatric diagnosis.   

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. 

Army Regulation 40-501 governs medical fitness standards for enlistment, retention and separation.  Paragraph 3-35 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 these conditions will be dealt with through appropriate administrative channels. 

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, 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 applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder.  By regulation, interference with performance of effective duty in association with these conditions will be dealt with through appropriate administrative channels. 

3.  The applicant was seen by Orthopedic Surgery during his treatment at the Alcoholism Rehabilitation Center.  He attended Physical Therapy for approximately one week and then stated that he felt that it was not to his benefit to stay and, since he was able to partake in physical activities such as football and volleyball, Physical Therapy agreed.  The Board concludes that since he was able to partake in these strenuous physical activities he was fit for his military duties.

4.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. 

5.  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 change its discharge accordingly. 

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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__rvo___  __rgh___  ___le___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999025494	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991124	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.