MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           8 August 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002069118

	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. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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 general discharge for unsuitability be corrected to a medical discharge with a 100% disability rating.

APPLICANT STATES:  He wasn’t awarded a medical discharge with compensation.

In support of his request he submits Maryland State Department of Education and Department of Veterans Affairs documents.  These documents show that the applicant was first diagnosed on 21 July 1993 with chronic schizophrenia, diabetes mellitus without complicating features, a history of alcohol abuse, and asthmatic bronchitis.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 March 1968, was awarded the military occupational specialty of bridge specialist, and was promoted to pay grade E-4.  He served in Vietnam from 31 May 1968 to 30 May 1969.

He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, UCMJ, on four occasions between 27 December 1966 and 7 June 1967 for being AWOL (twice), missing bed check, and using disrespectful language to a superior noncommissioned officer.

On 16 May 1969 the applicant’s commander notified him of his intent to recommend his discharge due to unsuitability, and provided him with the rights he had in conjunction with that recommendation.  The applicant waived his rights.

The applicant’s commander’s recommendation was accepted and the applicant was furnished a General Discharge Certificate on 3 June 1969 due to unsuitability under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.  He had 1 year, 2 months and 7 days of creditable service and 10 days of lost time.

Army Regulation 635-212, then in effect, set forth the policy and procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel for unfitness and unsuitability.  It provided, in pertinent part, for discharge due to unsuitability because of apathy of those individuals who displayed a lack of appropriate interest and/or an inability to expend effort constructively.  When separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record.

Army Regulation 635-40 provides that the medical treatment facility commander with the primary care responsibility will evaluate those referred to him and will, if it appears as though the member is not medically qualified to perform duty or 

fails to meet retention criteria, refer the member to a medical evaluation board.  Those members who do not meet medical retention standards will be referred to a physical evaluation board (PEB) for a determination of whether they are able to perform the duties of their grade and military specialty with the medically disqualifying condition.  For example, a noncommissioned officer who receives above average evaluation reports and passes Army Physical Fitness Tests (which have been modified to comply with the individual’s physical profile limitations) after the individual was diagnosed as having the medical disqualification would probably be found to be fit for duty.  The fact that the individual has a medically disqualifying condition does not mandate the person’s separation from the service.  Fitness for duty, within the parameters of the individual’s grade and military specialty, is the determining factor in regards to separation.  If the PEB determines that an individual is physically unfit, it recommends the percentage of disability to be awarded which, in turn, determines whether an individual will be discharged with severance pay or retired.  An Army disability rating is intended to compensate an individual for interruption of a military career after it has been determined that the individual suffers from an impairment that disqualifies him or her from further military service.    In this regard, the Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting, thus compensating the individual for loss of a career. 

Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, Retirement or Separation for Physical Disability, provides for the medical retirement and for the discharge for physical unfitness, with severance pay, of soldiers who incur a physical disability in the line of duty while serving on active or inactive duty.  

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  There is no record that the applicant was treated for any medical conditions while he was on active duty nor has he submitted any evidence of any such treatment.  As such, there is no evidence or indication that the applicant should have been determined medically disqualified.

2.  Without a finding of medical disqualification there was no basis to refer the applicant to a PEB or, therefore, to consider him for a medical discharge.

3.  While the applicant has submitted documents to show that he has been diagnosed as having chronic schizophrenia, he was first diagnosed as having that condition almost 24 years after his discharge.  Without evidence to show that 

he was treated for symptoms which would have indicated that he suffered from schizophrenia when he was on active duty, there is insufficient evidence on which to grant his 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

___mvt __  ____le__  ___rjw___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001062080	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020808	
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.	108.04	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.