MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           31 August 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000040838

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. W. W. Osborn, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. Joe R. Schroeder		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:  Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his records by granting him physical disability separation. 

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, he defers to his counsel.

COUNSEL CONTENDS: That Disabled American Veterans, the previous counsel, did not provide important evidence.  He has recovered and submits this evidence.  Counsel contends that there is no difference between the military and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) criteria on the issue of service connection.  The VA doctors examined the applicant and the Board’s medical advisor did not. Therefore, the VA opinion as to the origin of the applicant’s condition should carry more weight.  The applicant’s waiver of his processing rights was not valid because he lacked the mental capacity to make an informed choice.  He cites numerous cases to substantiate his argument.  Counsel submits VA documents, sworn affidavits by the applicant and his family, letters from individuals who were acquainted with the applicant and medical records to show that he was free of any mental condition prior to his enlistment.  

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case on 7 October 1999 (COPY ATTACHED).

The submissions are new evidence and argument that require Board consideration.

The applicant’s 4 February 2000 sworn affidavit states that, prior to his entry onto active duty, he had never had any symptoms of or been treated for any mental illness. The Army psychiatrist made several errors, including that his father had been hospitalized for psychiatric disorders.  He was forced to sign papers that he can not remember signing, nor can he now recall their content.   He was told that if he signed the papers he would get home sooner.  He was not allowed to consult with counsel.  When he signed he was suffering from delusions and hearing voices.

The applicant’s father swears that he, himself, has no history of mental disease.  Prior to enlisting, the applicant never exhibited any signs of mental illness.  After his discharge the applicant reported bizarre thinking and hearing voices.  Subsequent to the discharge, the VA diagnosed the applicant as psychotic and awarded him a 30 percent disability rating.

The applicant’s mother swears that, prior to enlisting, he had no history of mental problems and that his father had no history of mental illness.  She sets forth a chronology of the case that includes the following details:  She had to advise the applicant not to participate in some experimental procedure.  The applicant’s assigned psychiatrist admitted to her that the Army was responsible for her son’s mental problems.  The applicant was not allowed to consult with legal counsel and was forced to sign many papers, but that today he can not remember what he signed.  

An undated statement from a former neighbor relates that prior to going into the service the applicant had a bright cheerful outlook on life and a considerable talent for writing.  When he came back from the Army he had developed a bleak dismal outlook and this is reflected in his writings.

A pastor described the applicant’s pre-service behavior as that of a typical, 
multi-faceted young man.

A high school teacher relates that the applicant had a keen interest in literature and writing.  He was a wonderful person, and an extraordinary student with a good work ethic.

Another former teacher reports that the applicant was studious, interested, cordial, respectful and friendly.  He participated in class discussions and expressed his opinions well.

An assistant principal/instructor reports that the applicant was well liked and respected.  He functioned as a “normal” teenager.

A 21 May 1993 letter from a superintendent states that the applicant was well balanced and intellectually sound.

A medical doctor reports that he was the applicant’s primary care physician from May 1987 to February 1990 and that he lived across the street from him for several years.  There was no indication of any psychiatric disorder.

An insurance agent and lay pastor relates the ways in which the applicant has changed.  He relates that the applicant seems to have lost interest in his life and has no creative drive.  This individual summarizes his observations by saying “there is nothing that I have observed in the “Old Sam” that would lead me to conclude that his present condition is somehow tied to a pre-existing condition of the past.”
  
A pastor of the First Baptist Church of Missoula, Montana writes that the applicant was a active leader of his high school youth group who showed a great deal of leadership and strength of character. 

A 6 May 1999 VA rating decision informed the applicant that his disability rating was being increased to 100 percent effective 28 September 1998 and that “You are considered competent for VA purposes.”

Webster’s New World Medical Dictionary, available as MedicineNet.com Medical Dictionary discusses the causes of schizophrenia as follows:

           There is no known single cause of schizophrenia. As discussed later, it appears that genetic factors produce a vulnerability to schizophrenia, with environmental factors contributing to different degrees in different individuals. Just as each individual's personality is the result of an interplay of cultural, psychological, biological, and genetic factors, a disorganization of the personality, as in schizophrenia, may result from an interplay of many factors. Scientists do not agree on a particular formula that is necessary to produce the disorder. No specific gene has yet been found; no biochemical defect has been proven responsible; and no specific stressful event seems sufficient, by itself, to produce schizophrenia. 

Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 3-3 lists conditions that ”According to accepted medical principles” that when discovered lead to the conclusion that they must have started before the individual entered the service.  These include (g) congenital defects and hereditary conditions and (h) similar conditions in which medical authorities are in such consistent and universal agreement as to their cause and time of origin that no additional evidence is needed to support the conclusion that the disease existed prior to military service.

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.  Counsel asserts that there is no difference between the military and the VA criteria for service connection.  In actuality, service connection is purely a VA term.  It is not used by nor does it have any meaning in military disability processing.

2.  As counsel pointed out in the original application, the diagnosis of schizophrenia could not be made because the applicant had not exhibited symptoms long enough before his discharge.  However, the VA records indicate that schizophrenia appears to be the appropriate diagnosis and whatever the cause there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the applicant somehow contracted that condition in the Army. 

3.  The opinion of the VA doctors is not necessarily more valid because they examined the applicant.  The question at issue is the application of accepted medical principles as they apply to the development of the applicant’s mental illness and not what symptoms he may have manifested at a particular time or what medical history he may have related.   

4.  In the absence of any substantiating evidence the applicant’s claim, that he was forced to sign documents that he can not now recall signing, is not convincing.  The applicant was found competent to participate in the separation process by mental health professionals.   His own assertion that he was incompetent fails to outweigh that fact.  Furthermore, this Board notes that the VA found him both 100 percent disabled and competent.   

 5.  The VA is required to give the veteran the benefit of the doubt.  That the VA’s decision-makers have chosen to grant the applicant service connection is strictly within their purview.  That decision is irrelevant to the question of the applicant’s entitlement to physical disability retirement. 

6.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

7.  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

___SAC_  ___BJS__  ____JRS_  DENY APPLICATION

        Carl W. S. Chun
      Director, Army Board for Correction 
      of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000040838	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000831	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.04	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.