MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:  22 December 1999    
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999026056

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz		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 essence, that he be restored to duty with full pay plus interest dating back to 14 July 1955, due to a brain hemorrhage that he had while he was in the military.  He also requests compensation for the pain and suffering that he has endured since that time, and that he be exempted from paying taxes for the rest of his life.  He feels that at age 68, he has paid more taxes than most people will ever pay.  Additionally, he requests that the government say thank you to him for the service that he gave during the Korean War.

APPLICANT STATES:  In support of his request, he submits fifteen letters that were written in his own behalf dated 4 and 27 May 1999; 18 June 1999; 8 July, 10 July (two letters), 13 July and 15 July 1999 (two letters); 5, 6 and 27 August 1999; 28 November 1999 (two letters) and a letter dated 3 December 1999.  He also submits a Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) Rating Decision dated October 1998.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant’s military records were partially lost or destroyed in the National Personnel Records Center fire of 1973.  Information herein was obtained from other sources, to include submissions from the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA).  The information available shows:

That he successfully completed two prior honorable periods of service in the Regular Army (RA) from 5 August 1948-7 July 1950 and from 5 December 
1950-17 November 1953.  On 17 February 1954, he reenlisted in the RA.  His enlistment contract is not a matter of record.

The available records show the applicant reported to sick call several times complaining of severe headaches and upset stomach in late 1952 and early 1953.  On 12 February 1953, he was admitted to the “8166th AU at Sendai”, and later transferred to the 361st Station Hospital, APO 1055 for further observation and treatment.  On 18 February 1953, he received a neuropsychiatry evaluation. In addition to the above symptoms he contends that he experienced blackouts and periods where he could not recall where he had parked his car.  He also contends that he found himself standing in a hallway and he did not remember how he had gotten there. The record does not contain any further evidence concerning this hospital visit.

Further, his records show that in 1954, he was transferred three times in an effort to let him adjust.  He received a physical profile with an S-3 rating based on an anxiety reaction on 18 November 1954.  On 31 December 1954, after receiving this rating, he was assigned to duties in military occupational specialty (MOS) 1677 (Military Policeman).  Information is not available in his records as to his prior MOS’s.

On 13 January 1955, the applicant was assigned to the Headquarters, 5102 Area Service Unit, Military Police Detachment, Chicago, Illinois.  He was given 
1 week of training and assigned military policeman duties.  The applicant’s supervisors complained that he was unfit for military police duty.  As a result of his overall appearance and bearing he was removed from guard mount several times and placed on duty away from the view of the public.

On 14 March 1955, the applicant was put on overseas levy.  On 15 March
1955, he reported to the Fifth Army Dispensary and was sent from there to the US Naval Hospital, Great Lake, Illinois, for further evaluation and diagnosis.  He was removed from the levy and he remained in the hospital for 21 days.  He was diagnosed to suffer from anxiety reaction, moderate to severe.  This condition was not medically debilitating.  The recommendation was for an administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation Army Regulation 635-209.  On 5 April 1955, he was returned to duty

On 8 April 1955, the commander recommended that a board of officers be convened under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, for determining whether the applicant should be discharged for unsuitability before the expiration of his term of service.  The commander stated that the applicant had been relieved of all military police duties due to his emotional instability which rendered him incapable of satisfactorily performing normal duties within the detachment.  Additionally, the commander stated that he showed little initiative; he needed constant supervision; he expended only a minimum of effort within a given task; and he showed a lack of aptitude and ability to comprehend. 

On 13 June 1955, the applicant was notified to appear before a board of officers that would investigate his suitability for further service as a result of his emotional instability.  

On 17 June 1955, the applicant appeared before the board with counsel and 
stated that he declined the privilege of counsel.  He was advised of the specific evidence and allegations against him.  He was given an opportunity to present evidence in his own behalf, to testify in person, or to present a written statement. The applicant testified that he understood the purpose of the board, and that he understood his rights before the board.  He stated that he had been in the Army for 7 years and that he had planned to make the Army a career.  He also stated that this was the third board that had been recommended for him.  While in Japan, prior to the expiration of his last term of service, a hospital report had recommended a board, but because of the short time that he had left, he was shipped to the United States and discharged in a normal manner.  After about 
2 months or more in civilian life, his nerves settled down and he decided to reenlist.  Since reenlisting in February 1954, nervous tension had again built up, and he had been transferred five times, to include three different branches of the service.  He also stated that he understood that he could not successfully make the Army a career, and that it would be best for everyone if he were separated from the service. 

The board of officers concluded that the evidence produced by testimony, coupled with his record, his personal appearance, and his reaction to military discipline and duty indicated that he did not posses the qualifications necessary for a soldier.  The board recommended that the applicant be separated from the service under the provisions of paragraph 3a(4), Army Regulation 635-209, for unsuitability. 

On 14 July 1955, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army 
Regulation 635-209 by reason of unsuitability with a GD.  He had completed 
1 year, 4 months and 28 days on the enlistment under review and he had completed a total of 6 years, 7 months, and 12 days of active military service.  His awards and decorations during his last period of enlistment included the National Defense Service Medal.

The applicant claims that he served in the Korean War from 1950-1951, however, the available records do not show any foreign service.

On 12 January 1998, the DVA found that the applicant had frostbite residuals to both his left foot and leg and his right foot and leg were each 30% disabling, and that the neuralgia in both his right foot and leg and in his left foot and leg was each 20% disabling.  Both conditions were considered service connected disabilities.  Further, the DVA determined that his post traumatic stress disorder has increased from 30% to 50%.  His combined rating was placed at
90% disabling as of 13 October 1998. 

The available evidence does not show that the applicant has ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

Army Regulation 635-209, in effect at the time set forth the basic policy, and guidance for the prompt elimination of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 6 of the regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of individuals determined to be unsuitable for further service by reason of a character and behavior disorder.  Under this regulation and paragraph, the appropriate authority could approve an honorable or a general 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 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.  Title 38, United States Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the DVA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  The DVA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service.  The DVA, 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. 

3.  Records provided by the DVA indicate that the applicant has been awarded compensation for medical conditions which that agency has determined to be related to military service.  Furthermore, the DVA can evaluate a veteran throughout his lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings. 

4.  While the applicant claims that he had a medically unfitting disability which required physical disability processing at the time of discharge, he has not provided any probative medical evidence of any such medical condition.  Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability retirement or separation.

5.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.

6.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

7.	Further, this Board has no authority to exempt the applicant from paying 
federal or state taxes.  He should contact the appropriate state or federal tax service for information or his eligibility for some form of tax relief.

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

RVO____  AAO_____  EWL____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999026056	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19991222	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19550714	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-209 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A283	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	128.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.