MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 9 March 2000 DOCKET NUMBER: AR1999028293 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. Edmund P. Mercanti Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Chairperson Member 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 he be medically retired. APPLICANT STATES: He has been rated 50 percent disabled by the VA for bipolar disorder. He believes that he suffered from that condition while he was on active duty in Germany, and the condition was of the severity that it would have resulted in his medical retirement if it had not been for his wife filing a Congressional inquiry concerning his treatment by the military. He states that he was treated for alcoholism while on active duty, which was only a symptom of his bipolar disorder. He states that he is willing to go on a talk show if the Board does not grant his request. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: He enlisted in the ARNG with no prior service on 1 August 1981 and was given a general discharge from the ARNG and transferred to the USAR Control Group on 25 May 1983. He was assigned to a USAR unit on 3 October 1985 and reenlisted in the USAR for continued assignment to his unit on 12 July 1987. On 20 November 1987 he was involuntarily transferred from his unit to the USAR Control Group due to unsatisfactory participation. On 5 December 1989 he was again assigned to a USAR unit. He was again reassigned back to the USAR Control Group, but the order reassigning him is not in his records. On 31 December 1991 he was yet again assigned to a USAR unit. On 1 April 1992 he was involuntarily reassigned back to the USAR Control Group due to his failure to report to his unit as ordered. On 12 July 1993 he reenlisted in the USAR (Individual Mobilization Augmentee) for 6 years. On 29 August 1994 he was assigned to a USAR unit. He again was reassigned back to the USAR Control Group for unknown reasons. On 13 February 1996 he was assigned to a USAR unit. On 4 November 1996 he was honorably discharged from the USAR for reasons unknown. Army Regulation 600-8-1, paragraph 41-8 states, in pertinent part, that if an existing prior to service condition was aggravated by military service, the finding will be in line of duty. If an existing prior to service condition is not aggravated by military service, the finding will be not in line of duty, existing prior to service. Specific findings of natural progress of the pre-existing injury or disease based on well established medical principles alone are enough to overcome the presumption of service aggravation. Army Regulation 635-40 provides that 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. Paragraph 4-19b states that a PEB may decide that a soldier’s physical defect was EPTS, but must then determine whether the condition was aggravated by military service. If the PEB determines that a soldier has an unfitting EPTS condition which was service aggravated, the PEB must determine the degree of disability that is in excess of the degree existing at the time of entrance into the service. The method of determining the percentage of disability to be awarded in such cases is outlined in appendix B, item B-10 of this regulation. 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 evidence in the applicant’s record which would show that he was treated either for alcoholism or for a bipolar disorder. This is not to say such documentation does not exist. In view of the numerous changes of military status the applicant has had in his career, it is conceivable that many documents pertaining to his service have not made it into his military records. 2. However, even if the applicant did submit evidence that he was treated for either alcoholism or bipolar disorder while on a short period of active duty it would not, in and of itself, be sufficient to warrant a medical retirement. 3. Unlike individuals in the Regular Army who are on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year, a reservist not on extended active duty only enters on a duty status during weekend drills and short periods of active duty, such as annual training. Therefore, for a reservist performing a weekend drill or a short period of active duty, a medical condition must be incurred as a proximate result of performing that duty for that person to be eligible to be medically retired. That the symptoms of the medical condition manifested while the individual was a member of the reserves is not germane. 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 xxxx_____ _xxxxxx _____ xxx ____ DENY APPLICATION Karl F. Schneider Director, Army Review Boards Agency INDEX CASE ID AR1999028293 SUFFIX RECON YYYYMMDD DATE BOARDED 2000/03/09 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. 108.05 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. ABCMR Memorandum of AR1999028293 Consideration (cont) 2