MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:.

	BOARD DATE:           19 October 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000045660

	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. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		Member	
	Ms. Tracey L. Pinson		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 showing that he was discharged for physical disability. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, a recent statement from a health care provider shows that he was disabled at the time of his separation.  He provides an 8 June 2000 letter from a staff psychiatrist at the Avalon Center to substantiate his case.  

He also contends that he was denied medical care by his chain of command, that the Army doctors failed to diagnose his anxiety disorder and that the previous decision by the Board was flawed and reached the wrong conclusion. 

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 19 April 2000 (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant’s submission is new evidence that requires Board consideration. 

The 8 June 2000 letter states that the applicant was initially seen at the center on 11 November 1999, that he is receiving psychiatric services on a regular basis and that his medications include Zoloft (an antidepressant) and alprazolam (a sedative used for anxiety and panic attacks).

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 letter from the psychiatrist does not address the applicant’s condition at the time of the discharge.  He was found fit for retention, but was separated for personality disorder.  A personality disorder is not a disability under the law.   
 
2.  The applicant provided no evidence to show that he was denied medical treatment or misdiagnosed.  An expression of disagreement with a previous decision does not warrant reconsideration of the case by the Board.

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

__EWL__  __CJP __  __TLP __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000045660	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001019	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.