PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            31 May 2000       
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000038393

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James E. Vick		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelly		Member	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, disability retirement.  He states that he is currently rated as 100 percent disabled by the VA and believes he should have "been boarded medically with no less than 30% disability rather than the shameful discharge" he received.  In support of his request he submits documents confirming his VA disability rating and medical evaluations associated with his administrative separation.  He also submits a statement from his sister recanting her 1966 statement that her brother had attempted suicide prior to 
3 December 1965 and that he had experienced mental disorders and depression beginning at the age of 15.

3.  Records available to the Board indicate the applicant entered active duty on 
3 December 1965.  He successfully completed basic training prior to being assigned to Key West, Florida as a Hawk Missile Crewman in February 1966.

4.  On 3 August 1966 the applicant's unit commander initiated action to administratively separate him for unsuitability under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209.  The commander noted the applicant was unable, "due to emotional instability," to perform any useful function in the unit.  He indicated the applicant had been diagnosed with a "severe personality disorder" which was not likely to improve.  

5.  An 8 July 1966 medical evaluation noted the applicant had an "emotionally unstable personality, manifested by suicidal gestures, anxiety attacks, depression [and] manipulation."  The evaluating physician concluded the applicant had no "physical or mental disability sufficient to warrant separation under the provisions" of Army Regulation 635-40 and recommended an administrative separation.

6.  A 1 August 1966 evaluation by the chief of psychiatric services at the U.S. Naval Hospital in Key West recommended the applicant be administratively separated on the "basis of a pre-existing and severe personality disorder which renders his adjustment to the Army impossible."

7.  The applicant acknowledged the proposed separation and waived his attendant rights.  The recommendation was approved and on 12 August 1966 the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions.  There is no indication the applicant was ever subject to, or involved in, any disciplinary actions.

8.  Subsequent to his separation the applicant requested that his general discharge be corrected to reflect that he was retired by reason of disability.  Those requests were administratively closed noting that there was no evidence to indicate error or injustice in his administrative separation.

9.  In 1999 the VA granted the applicant a 100 percent disability rating for "major depression" effective 8 September 1998.
10.  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.

11.  Army Regulation 40-501 states 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.  It also states that transient, situational maladjustment due to acute or special stress does not render an individual unfit because of physical disability, but rather may be the basis for administrative separation if recurrent and causing interference with military duty.

12.  Army Regulation 635-209, in effect at the time, set forth the policy and prescribed procedures for eliminating enlisted personnel for unsuitability.  Action was to be taken to discharge an individual for unsuitability when, in the commander's opinion, it was clearly established that the individual was unlikely to develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a satisfactory soldier or the individual's psychiatric or physical condition was such as to not warrant discharge for disability.  Unsuitability included inaptitude, character and behavior disorders, disorders of intelligence and transient personality disorders due to acute or special stress, apathy, defective attitude, and inability to expend effort constructively, enuresis, chronic alcoholism, and homosexuality.  Evaluation by a medical officer was required and, when psychiatric indications are involved, the medical officer must be a psychiatrist, if one was available.  A general or honorable discharge was considered appropriate.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, currently in effect, provides that a soldiers separated as a result of a character, behavior or personality disorder, are discharged with an honorable characterization of service unless they had been convicted of an offense by general court-martial or convicted by more than one special court-martial.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record indicates the applicant did not have any medically unfitting disability that required physical disability processing.  Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability retirement.

2.  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.

3.  However, the Board notes that there appears to have been no evidence of any misconduct by the applicant during his military service.  As such a general discharge seems unduly harsh in light of the fact that the applicant was determined to be suffering from a personality disorder by a psychiatrist.  Under today’s standards the applicant would have been honorably discharged.  Therefore, when viewed in light of current Army policy, the applicant’s discharge should be upgraded to fully honorable as a matter of equity.

4.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by upgrading the applicant's 12 August 1966 general discharge to honorable.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

___jev__  ___sk___  ___jpi__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000038393	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000531	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	Grant	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.