MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            2 November 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000041431

	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	
	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Echorne		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Member	
	Mr. William D. Barr		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 effect, disability retirement or separation.

APPLICANT STATES:  She had a “mental breakdown while on active duty” and should have received a medical discharge.  In support of her request she submits copies of her VA medical records.

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

She initially entered active duty as a member of the U.S. Army Reserve in 1989.  On 19 March 1997 she enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty.

In June 1997 she was punished under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failing to go to her appointed place of duty, insubordinate conduct, and failing to obey an order.  Her punishment included reduction to pay grade E-3, restriction and extra duty.  On 23 July 1997 the applicant’s commander initiated a local bar to reenlistment against the applicant citing her pattern of misconduct and numerous counseling statements as the basis for the bar.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed bar and elected not to submit any statements in her own behalf.  The local bar was approved on 31 July 1997.

On 19 September 1997 the applicant was found medically qualified for separation/retention.  A mental status evaluation, conducted on 19 September 1997, found the applicant fully alert and oriented and that her thought process was normal and her memory good.  The evaluating official concluded that she was mentally responsible, able to understand and participate in proceedings, and met retention requirements.

Although documents associated with the applicant’s administrative separation were not in records available to the Board, her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) indicates that she was discharged under honorable conditions on 19 December 1997 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b for misconduct.  The applicant had completed 9 months and 1 day of active Federal service at the time of her separation.

Subsequent to her separation the VA initially denied her petition for service connected disability based on a “nervous conditions” but upon appeal ultimately granted her a 70 percent rating for “major depression with psychotic features.”  In August 1999 her rating was increased to 100 percent based on “schizoaffective disorder, with only partial remission….”

Documents in her VA file indicate that she was hospitalized from 6 October 1997 through 6 November 1997, from 7 November 1997 through 30 November 1997 and from 4 December 1997 through 11 December 1997.  The records also indicate she reported a “depressive episode in June 1997” and “three suicidal gestures….”

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b provides for the administrative separation of soldier with a pattern of misconduct consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities, or conduct, which is prejudicial to good order and discipline.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under these provisions but the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the soldier’s overall record.

Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 4-3 states that an enlisted soldier may not be referred for, or continue, physical disability processing when action has been started under any regulatory provision which authorizes a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions.  However, the commander exercising general court-martial jurisdiction over the soldier may abate the administrative separation if he/she finds the disability is the cause, or a substantial contributing cause, of the misconduct that might result in a discharge under other than honorable conditions or other circumstances warrant disability processing instead of alternate administrative separation. 

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.

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.  The evidence confirms that the applicant was administratively separated from the Army under provisions which could have resulted in an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  There is no evidence, and the applicant has not presented any, that the general court-martial convening authority determined that referral for disability processing was warranted in her case.

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.  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 that requirement.

4.  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

__gdp___  ___mhm__  ____pm__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041431	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20001102	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	Deny	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.