MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            6 February 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000042605

	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. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison 		Member	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi 		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, physical disability retirement.  

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant made no statement, but deferred to counsel.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  That the applicant suffered several debilitating psychological injuries while on active duty which rendered him unfit for military service.  He has been suffering from a variety of mental disorders since his discharge.  A psychiatrist has stated that he has treated the applicant for many years and opined that the applicant suffered from a variety of psychological disorders directly related to his Army service.  That opinion is corroborated by that of another doctor, who stated that the applicant was suffering from depression, with anxiety and dissociative phenomena.

Counsel states that prior to his discharge, the applicant’s commanding officer recommended that he be given extensive medical and psychiatric care, to be followed by a medical board.  Placing him into the physical disability system would have afforded him the opportunity for severance or retired pay.

Counsel states that an Army psychiatrist did see the applicant briefly, but there was no evidence that he had a lengthy doctor-patient relationship.  Discharging the applicant without benefit of a medical board was a clear and unmistakable error.  The applicant suffers from a variety of psychological disorders that were incurred on active duty.  Counsel states that the applicant should be placed on the permanent disability retired list with a 100 percent disability rating because of post traumatic stress disorder, panic disorder, anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Army for three years on 30 March 1966, completed basic training, and in June 1966 was assigned to Fort Gordon, Georgia.  

On 27 June 1966 the applicant was examined by a psychiatrist at the Mental Hygiene Consultation Division at Fort Gordon.  The applicant’s condition was diagnosed as emotional instability, chronic, severe; manifested by inability to adjust to military environment, immaturity, nervousness, and other symptoms of chronic anxiety; labile control of emotional responses to minor environmental stresses; and impulsive escape-type behavior (one suicide gesture).  He stated that the applicant had ineffective parental guidance with unstable home; problems with adjustment to parental authority; mismanagement of hostility and anxiety feelings in the past; and strong unresolved emotional needs previously masked by over reliance on parents and by evasion of responsibility.  Impairment for further military duty was marked.  His character structure appeared to be deeply ingrained and beyond the scope of rehabilitative efforts in a military environment.  Not in line of duty because his condition existed prior to service (EPTS).  The psychiatrist stated that the applicant had no disqualifying mental defect sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels, was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in administrative proceedings.  He recommended that the applicant be administratively separated from the Army.  
On 28 June 1966 the applicant stated that he had been counseled and notified by his commanding officer that he was recommending him for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 because of his inability to adjust to military life.  He stated that he waived his right to counsel and waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers.  He elected not to submit statements in his own behalf.  He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the general discharge that he might receive.

The applicant’s commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that administrative action be taken to discharge the applicant.  He stated that the applicant had received repeated counseling from the first sergeant and the company commander and had received treatment from mental hygiene.

On 14 July 1966 the applicant’s battalion commander recommended that the applicant not be separated from the service.  That official stated that the applicant should be given extensive medical and psychiatric care, and subsequently evaluated by a medical board.  He stated that the applicant, in his seemingly advanced stage of mental depression should not be released until all therapeutic measure have been taken.

On 19 July 1966 the applicant’s troop commander recommended that the applicant be eliminated from the Army.  He stated that according to professional judgment of the psychiatrist, the applicant was not amenable to treatment in a military environment. 

On 25 July 1966 the separation authority approved the recommendation to discharge the applicant and stated that he would be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

The applicant was discharged on 11 August 1966 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209.  He had 4 months and 12 days of service.

In a 22 August 1994 letter, a civilian doctor in Richmond, Virginia, stated that he treated the applicant from 19 August 1966 through 4 October 1966, and diagnosed his condition as depressive reaction, with anxiety and dissociative phenomena and psychophysiological components.  There was questionable hypertension.

In a 5 April 2000 letter a Virginia Beach psychiatrist (board certified in psychiatry and neurology) stated that the applicant suffered from generalized anxiety disorder, post traumatic stress disorder, panic disorder and agoraphobia, anxiety disorder, and major depression with psychotic features, each of which is 100 percent disabling, and each of which is directly related to his military experiences.  He also suffers from a psychothymic disorder, which is 50 percent disabling and which is more or less directly related to his military experiences.

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.

Title 10, United States Code, chapter 61, provides disability retirement or separation for a member who is physically unfit to perform the duties of his office, rank, grade or rating because of disability incurred while entitled to basic pay.

Army Regulation 635-40 provides that according to accepted medical principles, certain abnormalities and residual conditions exist that, when discovered, lead to the conclusion that they must have existed or have started before the individual entered military service.  Examples of these conditions include hereditary conditions.
Army Regulation 635-40 also provides that hereditary, congenital and other EPTS conditions frequently become unfitting through natural progression and should not be assigned a disability rating unless service aggravated complications are clearly documented or unless a soldier has been permitted to continue on active duty after such a condition, known to be progressive, was diagnosed or should have been diagnosed.

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

2.  The contentions of the applicant and his counsel have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not supported by either evidence submitted with the application or the evidence of record.  It is apparent to the Board that the applicant’s mental condition existed prior to his enlistment in the Army.  

3.  The applicant did not have any medically unfitting disability which required physical disability processing.  Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability retirement or separation.

4.  Neither the applicant nor counsel has submitted probative evidence or a convincing argument in support of his request.   

5.  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.

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___  ___wtm__  ___tl___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000042605	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010206	
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.  177	108.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.