RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            12 FEBRUARY 2004                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003094805

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. Robert J. Osborn II		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:  

1.  In effect, the applicant is requesting that his SPD (separation) code on his   DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected so that he will not have to reimburse the government for the bonus that he received when he enlisted in the Army.  In this connection, he implies that he should receive physical disability retirement or separation.

2.  The applicant states that he was informed that because the SPD code, "JPD," is entered on his DD Form 214, he is obligated to pay back his enlistment bonus. He states that he is receiving disability from the Department of Veterans      Affairs (VA).   

3.  The applicant provides a copy of VA medical records, a copy of a letter on his behalf from a family member, and a copy of a VA disability rating.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Army for 6 years on 7 January 1999.  His enlistment documents show that he received an enlistment bonus of $12,000.00. He was trained as an infantryman and in June 1999 completed airborne training and was awarded the Parachutist Badge.  In July 1999 he was assigned to Company E, 3d Infantry, at Fort Myer, Virginia. 
  
2.  On 20 January 2000 the applicant received a memorandum of reprimand from the Commanding General, Military District of Washington (MDW), for driving while intoxicated (DWI).  The applicant was informed that he was required to acknowledge receipt of the memorandum, enclosing any rebuttal within five days of receipt.  The applicant acknowledged receipt to his commanding officer, indicating that he did not elect to submit a statement in his own behalf.    

3.  The applicant's commanding officer indicated that he had a previous drug or alcohol offense and that he had been enrolled in the ADAPCP (Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program) since 18 December 2000 [probably an error – should be 1999]. 

4.  The MDW commander directed that the memorandum of reprimand be filed in the applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF). 

5.  The applicant was discharged on 16 August 2000 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, because of alcohol rehabilitation failure.  His character of service was honorable.  His separation code on his DD Form 214 is "JPD."  The record of the applicant's separation processing is not available to the Board.  

6.  A 7 August 2000 compensation and pension (C&P) exam inquiry indicates that the applicant alleged paranoid schizophrenia, substance abuse, and pneumonia.

7.  A 27 August 2000 VA C&P exam report for respiratory conditions indicates that the applicant was treated for pneumonia during basic training.  His condition was diagnosed as status post pneumonia occurring while on active duty, treated; and that changes in pulmonary function tests were probably secondary to the applicant's smoking habit. 

8.  A 12 September 2002 medical report prepared by a psychiatrist in Midland, Texas, indicates that the applicant was referred by a VA hospital, and that the applicant's chief complaint was, "I have psychotic episodes."  The psychiatrist stated that the applicant, while stationed in Washington, D.C., was drinking and abusing drugs, and prior to taking a test for guard duty, he was found so drunk that he could not do it [take the test].  He continued to abuse drugs and alcohol, had one DWI, and was in outpatient therapy for alcohol problems.  His behavior was unsatisfactory.  He agreed to a discharge, and he was discharged.  He went home, lived with his parents, continued to drink, and had another DWI.  He had four or five charges that day, was driving recklessly, and spent 45 days in jail.  Finally his parents had him evaluated and he was diagnosed as having schizophrenia and placed on Risperdal.  He did well; however decided to stop taking the medication, and started hearing voices.  He went back on Risperdal and was doing well.  The doctor stated that he lives with his parents; but still drinks two or three beers a day.  He denies abusing any drugs, but occasionally smokes marijuana.  The psychiatrist diagnosed his condition as schizophrenia, paranoid type, chronic in remission, and chronic alcoholism.  He recommended that the applicant be monitored, and that he be advised to enter into an alcohol rehabilitation program, and to continue seeking help with his psychotic medications.  

9.  On 21 October 2002 the VA informed the applicant that he was granted a      30 percent disability rating for schizophrenia, paranoid type, effective on 29 May 2002.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 9-2 of that regulation states, in effect, that a Soldier enrolled in the alcohol and drug abuse prevention and control program may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program when there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical.
Paragraph 9-4 of that regulation states that the service of Soldiers discharged will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

11.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 prescribes the specific authorities, reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the separation program designator (SPD) codes to be entered on the DD Form 214, and indicates in pertinent part that a Soldier discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,      chapter 9, alcohol rehabilitation failure, will have a SPD code of "JPD" entered on his DD Form 214. 

12.  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.

13.  Title 38, United States Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permit the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  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.  The VA, which has neither the authority, nor the responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service, awards disability ratings to veterans for conditions that it determines were incurred during military service and subsequently affect the individual’s civilian employability.  Furthermore, unlike the Army, 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 rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of separation, thus compensating the individual for loss of a career; while the VA may rate any service connected impairment, including those that are detected after discharge, in order to compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's separation code on his DD Form 214 is correct.  There is no error or injustice.      

2.  The applicant was discharged because of his problems with alcohol.  The evidence indicates that the Army attempted to help him, to no avail.  The evidence also shows that his problems with alcohol continued after his discharge. 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.  The applicant was medically fit at the time of his discharge in August 2002.  There is no basis for physical disability retirement or separation.

3.  That the applicant has to reimburse the government for the enlistment bonus that he received is a situation of his own making.  He signed a contract, agreeing to serve for 6 years, received a bonus in accordance with the terms of his contract, but failed to live up to his end of the contract because of his  inappropriate behavior.  His request that his SPD code be corrected so that he will not have to pay back the debt to the government is not granted.
  
BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JHL  __  __LE ___  __RJO __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

		___Joann H. Langston____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003094805	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20040212	
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.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.