MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

IN THE CASE OF:  

BOARD DATE:           12 December 2000                  
DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000045139

	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. Gerald E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Lana E. McGlynn		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		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 her application to correct her records by upgrading her discharge and awarding her physical disability retirement.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she defers further comment to counsel.

COUNSEL STATES:  In effect, that the prior decision was fraught with errors and the language was offensive to the applicant.  Counsel states that as a result of sexual harassment by the applicant’s female company commander that she developed a condition which is now diagnosed as post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).  Counsel contends that as the Department of Veterans Affairs has granted the applicant a 50% disability for PTSD, both their earlier determination and that of the Army were wrong and the applicant warrants relief.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum of consideration (MOC) prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case (AR1999032417) on 25 May 2000.

The applicant submits a copy of a VA rating determination dated 31 May 2000. This rating decision states that the applicant was granted service connection for PTSD as a result of a Board of Psychiatrists (BOP) determination that she is suffering from PTSD.  The VA BOP indicates that it was their opinion that this condition was “directly related to the event(s) alleged by the veteran and documented by her complaints to Psychiatry in April 1952 while in the service.” 

This submission constitutes new evidence that requires Board consideration.

In May of 1952, the applicant was afforded a medical examination in concert with her discharge.  At that time the applicant was shown to be suffering from no significant physical or psychiatric abnormalities.  She was determined to be suffering from a personality or character disorder.  This diagnosis was carried through and confirmed by the VA ratings denying her service connection for any mental, emotional or psychiatric condition in September 1952, April 1974, December 1980 and August 1997.

The applicant’s records indicate that she had only served for 11 months and 8 days of service with 53 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides a description of the requirements for an honorable discharge as follows; an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

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.

PTSD, an anxiety disorder, was not recognized as a psychiatric disorder until 1980 with the publishing of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) III.  The condition is described in the current DSM IV, pages 424 through 427.  While PTSD has only been categorized by psychiatrists as a distinct diagnosis since 1980, it has, as early as the Civil War, been described in psychological literature, variously labeled as shell shock, soldier's heart, effect syndrome, combat fatigue, traumatic neurosis and others.  During the period of time in question, similar psychiatric symptomatology was categorized as hysterical neurosis.  Although the current label of PTSD is of rather recent acceptance, the idea that catastrophes and tragedies can result in persistent emotional and psychological symptoms is common even among the lay public.  While PTSD was not recognized as a specific illness at the time of the applicant's separation from the service, the fact that an individual might not be fit for further military service because of psychosis, psychoneurosis, or neurological disorders is outlined in Army Regulation 40-501.  The Army has established standards and procedures for determining fitness for retention and utilized those procedures and standards in evaluating individuals at that time.  The specific diagnostic label given to an individual's condition after their discharge from the service may change, but any change does not call into question the application of then existing fitness standards.

Army Regulation 15-185 sets forth the policy and procedures for the ABCMR.  It provides that, if a request for a reconsideration is received within one year of the prior consideration and the case has not been previously reconsidered, it will be resubmitted to the Board if there is evidence (including but not limited to any facts or arguments as to why relief should be granted) that was not in the record at the time of the Board’s prior consideration.  The staff of the Board is authorized to determine whether or not such evidence had been submitted.

The regulation provides further guidance for reconsideration requests that are received more than 1 year after the Board’s original consideration or after the Board has already reconsidered the case.  In such cases, the staff of the Board will review the request to determine if substantial relevant evidence has been submitted that shows fraud, mistake in law, mathematical miscalculation, manifest error, or if there exists substantial relevant new evidence discovered contemporaneously or within a short time after the Board’s original decision.  If the staff finds such evidence, the case will be resubmitted to the Board.  If no such evidence is found, the application will be returned without action.

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.  A general discharge was warranted based upon the applicant's entire record, including but not limited to her 53 days of AWOL and her limited total period of service.

2.  A VA diagnosis of PTSD 48 years after the fact does not support the finding that the applicant had a mental or psychiatric condition that warranted referral for a physical disability evaluation at the time of her discharge.  This diagnosis does not invalidate the diagnosis of a character or personality disorder afforded her then and at various times since her discharge.

3.  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.

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

__FNE__  __LEM___  ___HBO_  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000045139	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	20001212 	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.01	
2.	108.03	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.