MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  1 February 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000046105

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Lutz		Member	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		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:  That his honorable discharge be changed to a medical discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he acquired a schizophrenic disorder during his active duty service.  In support of his application he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 and a copy of his VA claim, dated 12 January 1994. 

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he enlisted on 21 April 1976 as a indirect fire infantryman.  

Between 3 May and 5 July 1977, the applicant was punished twice under Article 15, (UCMJ), for violation of a lawful general order and for wrongful possession of marijuana.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, a reduction to the pay grade of E-2, 7 days confinement, restriction, and extra duty.

On 26 November 1979, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13, for unsuitability, personality disorder.  A psychiatric examination was prepared and indicated as an enclosure; however, this examination is not present in the available records. 

After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived consideration, personal appearance, and representation before a board of officers and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 14 December 1979, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished an Honorable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 8 January 1980.  He had a total of 3 years, 8 months, and 18 days of creditable service.

The applicant’s medical records are unavailable for review by this Board.

The applicant provided a copy of his VA claim, dated 12 January 1994, which shows he was granted compensation for a service connected disability of schizophrenia to be included with his service connected Tourettes syndrome.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of this regulation,
in effect at that time, provided for separation due to inaptitude, personality disorder, apathy, and homosexuality.  The regulation requires that separation action will be taken when, in the commander’s judgement, the individual will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further military training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.  Service of soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation were characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.
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 40-501, at paragraph 4-3a, provides, in pertinent part, that performance of duty despite an impairment would be considered presumptive evidence of physical fitness. 

Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 2-2b, as amended, provides that when a member is being separated by reasons other than physical disability, his continued performance of duty creates a presumption of fitness which can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that he was unable to perform his duties or that acute grave illness or injury or other deterioration of physical condition, occurring immediately prior to or coincident with separation, rendered the member unfit.

An award of a VA rating does not establish entitlement to medical retirement or separation from the Army.  Operating under its own policies and regulations, the VA, which has neither the authority nor the responsibility for determining medical unfitness for military duty, awards ratings because a medical condition is related to service ("service-connected") and affects the individual's civilian employability. Furthermore, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings.  The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably perform his or her duties and assign an appropriate disability rating before he or she can be medically retired or separated.

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 Board notes the applicant’s contention that he acquired a schizophrenic disorder during his active duty service.  The Board also notes that the applicant’s service medal records are unavailable for review and that he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsuitability,
personality disorder.  Therefore, there is no basis to change the applicant’s honorable discharge to a medical discharge.

2.  The fact that the VA, in its discretion, has awarded the applicant a disability rating is a prerogative exercised within the policies of that agency.  It does not, in itself, establish physical unfitness for Department of the Army purposes.

3.  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.

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for that separation were
appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

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 this 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

__ls____  ___bl___  ___ja____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000046105	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010201	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19800108	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, C, 13	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.