AMEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  18 December 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2001061604

	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:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Jose A. Martinez		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, that she be reinstated in the US Army Reserve (USAR). 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she was illegally discharged because she was not represented by counsel under disastrous circumstances which took place in the Torrington Police Department in Torrington, Connecticut.  She also states that the Torrington Police Department was responsible for causing problems continuously and that she was denied permission to speak with her commander and recruiting officer.  She further states that she is signing a legal document to the Board stating that the Torrington Police Department attempted to abuse and assault to kill her, and manipulate an illegal arrest.  The arrest occurred in April 1986, harassment from 1984 to 1992, and foul language was demonstrated continuously due to a misunderstanding of her illness.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show she enlisted 
on 8 November 1978 as a medical specialist.  She continued to serve until she 
was honorably discharged on 21 June 1979, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 8-6, due to pregnancy.

She enlisted in the USAR on 6 December 1979.

The applicant’s records contain a copy of a Standard Form 88 (Report of
Medical Examination), dated 18 February 1982, which shows that the applicant was qualified for reenlistment in the USAR with a physical profile of 111121. 

She reenlisted in the USAR on 10 May 1982, for a period of 6 years.

The applicant’s records contain a copy of her Standard Form 88, dated
24 August 1987, which shows that she was administered a physical examination for the purpose of reenlistment in the USAR.  Item 74 (Summary of Defects and Diagnoses) indicated that she was diagnosed as having paranoid schizophrenia, being actively treated, and was on medication since 1983.  Item 77 (Examinee) states that she was not qualified for continued service in the USAR.  

The applicant’s records contain a copy of a Report of Medical Examination Form, dated 24 August 1987, which was signed by a clinical psychologist.  The  psychologist diagnosed the applicant as having schizophrenia, paranoid type,
in partial remission.  

The applicant’s records contain a copy of a letter, dated 24 August 1987, from the Chief Medical Officer at the Springfield Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS).  The medical officer notified the applicant that, as a result of her recent military entrance medical examination, she had been found medically disqualified for entrance in the Armed Forces of the United States.  The reason for her medical disqualification was his finding of paranoid schizophrenia which was disqualifying.  He also stated that this problem might not affect her current or future employability in civilian life; however, it was considered disqualifying for military service under current medical standards for enlistment.  He further stated that standards were designed to obtain recruits who can complete all aspects of military training and perform military duty worldwide without limitations, under sometimes very difficult conditions, and without excessive time lost due to medical problems.  The medical officer did not recommend the applicant for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) or any form of physical disability processing after this diagnosis.

The applicant’s records contain a copy of a memorandum, dated 24 December 1987, from the US Army Reserve Personnel Center (ARPERCEN), subject:  Reply to Notification of Medical Disqualification.  The applicant acknowledged 
that she was physically disqualified for further retention in the Active Reserve and/or entry on active duty, and elected discharge from the Army Reserve.

The applicant’s records contain a copy of ARPERCEN Orders D-05-037385, dated 4 May 1988, which shows that she was discharged from the USAR on 9 May 1988.  

The applicant’s allegations concerning the Torrington Police Department are
not considered pertinent to this case or the reason for her discharge.

Army Regulation 135-178 establishes the policies, standards, and procedures governing the administrative separation of enlisted soldiers from the Reserve
Components.  Paragraph 1-3 states, in pertinent part, that orders discharging a soldier would not be revoked or the effective date changed after the effective date of discharge unless there was evidence of manifest error or fraud.  After the 
effective date of discharge, orders can be amended by the separation authority only to correct manifest errors such as the wrong character of service or to correct administrative errors such as rank, social security number, or misspelled name.

Paragraph 11-1 of the same regulation pertains to completion of terms of enlistment or period of statutory obligated service.  The period of military service for all enlisted soldiers of the Army will be accordance with applicable laws.  On expiration of term of enlistment, reenlistment, or period of statutorily obligated service, the soldier will be discharged by the separation authority.  Soldiers will not be held in service beyond their normal expiration of term of service (ETS) unless their ETS is extended by law.

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 of record shows that the applicant was administered a physical
examination for the purpose of reenlistment in the USAR, was diagnosed as having schizophrenia, and was not qualified for continued service in the USAR.

2.  The Board notes that the applicant was notified on 24 August 1987, by the Chief Medical Officer of the Springfield MEPS, that she was found medically disqualified due to paranoid schizophrenia and that this condition was considered disqualifying for military service under current medical standards for enlistment.
There is no evidence in the applicant’s record to show that the Chief Medical Officer recommended a MEB or any further disability processing prior to her discharge.

3.  The Board also notes that the applicant was notified by ARPERCEN on 24 December 1987, that as a result of her recent military entrance medical examination, that she was found medically disqualified for entrance in the 
Armed Forces of the United States due to paranoid schizophrenia.  The Board further notes that the applicant elected discharge from the USAR.

4.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that the was illegally discharged because she was not represented by counsel; however, evidence of record shows that she was honorably discharged from the USAR due to her ETS under the provisions of Army Regulation 135-178 and was not qualified for retention beyond her ETS.  Therefore, she was not entitled to reinstatement in the USAR. 

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

__iw___  ___jm___  ___tl___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001061604	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011218	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19880509	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 135-178	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  360		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.