MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:           22 August 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999030139

	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. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Edward Williamson 		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson 		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin 		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:  Physical disability retirement.  He also requests that the two awards of the Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) that he received, be upgraded to either a Silver Star or a Distinguished Service Cross, especially the  DFC that he received for his heroism on 27 January 1967.  He also requests that his DD Form 214 be corrected to show award of the Pathfinder Badge, and three awards of the Army Good Conduct Medal.  He requests that the additional schools that he attended be added to that form – Ranger, Pathfinder (twice), Officer Candidate School, Jumpmaster School, and Aerial Delivery School.   

APPLICANT STATES:  That his late request for physical disability retirement because of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is because he has not been mentally capable or alert enough to submit the necessary information and documentation to support his case.

He states that he was exposed to several extremely traumatic events during his tours in Vietnam, as evidenced by the VA rating decision, and the reports of psychiatric evaluation.  He abused alcohol, essentially numbing or killing his PTSD symptoms with alcohol.  After he quit drinking in 1985, he barely existed until 1989, when he had a serious breakdown and was hospitalized.  He provides a history of his PTSD problems, stating that he was wounded in 1969, and thereafter had extreme anxiety and very serious insomnia.  After his transfer to Korea, his PTSD caused big problems.  He continued drinking heavily, and on     2 January 1970 became severely anxious and could not sleep.  He was hypervigilant and a complete nervous wreck, associated with the events he was exposed to in Vietnam.  Valium and Seconal were prescribed for his condition. 

After Korea, he was assigned to Fort Rucker, Alabama.  He continued drinking, and was prescribed Valium and Librium to control his anxiety.  In March 1971 a doctor noted his tenseness when he was off those medications.  He states that if PTSD were known at that time, he would have been referred to mental health professionals and so diagnosed.  He continued on those medications until his retirement in 1973.  After retirement, alcohol consumption became his medication for PTSD.

He also states that the loss of his brother in Vietnam in November 1967 caused him to have a great deal of guilt and severe depression, which continues to this day.

His work history since his retirement has not been good, as evidenced by his FICA summary of earnings.  He has not been able to maintain employment for any length of time.

He states that the VA rating decision of 10 November 1991 and the psychiatric evaluation of 9 October 1991 specifically state that his PTSD symptoms have existed for many years, and that he had been unaware of his diagnosis until he stopped drinking.  They also state that he had a typical history of attempting to obliterate his thoughts and feelings through the use of ethanol.

He states that he has been in mental health counseling since 1989 for PTSD and is on long term medication for this problem.  He provides a letter from his treating psychiatrist in regards to his PTSD.

In an undated letter to this Board the applicant forwarded a copy of a VA statement, dated 30 March 2000, indicating that the applicant had been totally disabled on a continuous basis since 23 March 1992.  In this letter the applicant stated the summary of his FICA earnings included in his application clearly indicated that the yearly earning amounts were primarily from his military retirement pay.

In a 2 May 2000 letter to this Board, the applicant forwarded a copy of a 1996 court case, which he stated was practically identical to his case, and that there was more evidence of PTSD on active duty in his case because he was being prescribed various mood altering drugs, Librium, Valium, and Seconal, beginning in 1970 in Korea until his retirement in 1973.  Those drugs were prescribed for sleeplessness, extreme tenseness, and anxiety.  He stated that as in the 1996 court case, he should have received a mental evaluation upon retirement, as the fact that he had been prescribed those drugs for some time, should have been a signal to anyone examining his records that a mental evaluation was in order.  
The 1996 court case concerns a former soldier, discharged in 1970, who was denied a 100 percent service disability rating by this Board for PTSD.  The federal district court decided that the Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, and ordered the former soldier be granted a disability discharge from 1970 because he suffered from PTSD, 100 percent disabling.  On 16 June 2000 the applicant again forwarded a copy of that court case.    

In a 17 July 2000 letter, one of the applicant’s daughters described her relationship with her father while she was growing up, stating that after he returned from Vietnam, he became despondent and depressed, isolated and spent a great deal of time in the woods with his dog.  She stated that he was medicated with Valium and Librium.  After he returned from his second tour of duty, he began drinking, had chest pains, and shortness of breath.  They (members of his family) could not speak to him during those periods.  He related that once, while drinking, he told her that he had sent young boys into the jungle to be killed.  She stated that her father’s drinking increased, that their home life situation worsened, and the applicant was never there mentally.  They had no communication.  She stated that his condition later affected her life, and also the lives of all the family members.

In a 19 July 2000 letter, the applicant’s wife echoed her daughter’s statements, saying that the applicant was a severely changed person when he returned from Vietnam in 1967.  He was a loner, went into fits of rage, and treated the family like they did not exist.  He had become a heavy drinker, became severely depressed after his brother was killed, and drank more than ever.  While in Korea, he wrote that he was extremely anxious, had problems sleeping, and was prescribed sedatives.  When he returned from Korea, his drinking became worse, and his depression and anxiety were out of control.  He had to seek medical help.  His nerves were shot.  He began receiving sedatives.  She stated that the applicant should have been referred into mental health counseling.  She stated that applicant was selected to be a commander of a helicopter demonstration team, but refused to accept the assignment, and was told to find a new home, because his superior did not want to give him a bad efficiency report.  He retired three months earlier that he could have, because he said he and his boss did not get along.  After his retirement, he went to trade school, created a separate bank account for his GI bill check, not sharing any of it with his family.  He drank it all up.  He had problems with absenteeism in school and did not learn a lot.  He was unable to hold a job for any length of time.  His problem with rage was very severe.  After he stopped drinking in 1985 his mental condition rapidly deteriorated.  Eventually in 1989 he had a frank psychosis requiring hospitalization.  He was referred for a PTSD evaluation.  The evaluating psychiatrist stated that her husband had one of the worst cases of depression and PTSD he had ever encountered.  She stated that the applicant had been in counseling and was taking medications for years for PTSD, without success.  He recently had been taking two medications, and seemed to be mellowing a bit. She stated that he has had severe depression, severe anxiety, and severe PTSD, since prior to his retirement from the Army.  

In a 20 July 2000 letter, the applicant made reference to another Board case, comparing that person’s experiences to his.  He described his service and some of the actions and incidents in which he was involved, his feelings to include his guilt and shame, and his anguish.  He continued by commenting on his anxiety and insomnia in Korea, his drinking, the medication he was taking, and his symptoms of autonomic arousal, chest pains, and PTSD from 1969 to 1973.  He stated that both his chest pain and breathing problems were symptoms of anxiety disorders.  He stated that nothing could keep him from being alert for long.  He slept very little, and has not had a good night’s sleep in years.  He has been on all kinds of medication over the years.  He had a two year lock in after his promotion to lieutenant colonel; however, he had become so ill that he could not complete those two years and opted for early retirement.  He and his superior were not getting along.  He had become mentally ineffective to perform
his duty and had been that way for a long time.  He had become a drugged zombie, an ineffective person without any goals, or anything to look forward to.  
The applicant described his life after his retirement, confirming the information provided by his wife, and stated that he could not be around crowds, could not stay in small spaces for any length of time, and had difficulty sitting in church for an hour on Sunday.  Outside of his immediate family, he had minimum contact with other people.  He stated that on his retirement physical he was so sick from mental illness and the influence of sedatives and alcohol addiction, that he could not remember that he was suffering from any condition or diseases of any consequences.  He stated that the Army unknowingly had made him drug dependent and frankly he did not know what was going on.  The doctor who reviewed his medical records, in effect, did a cursory review.  The Army did him a disservice, by not ordering a mental evaluation board examination prior to his retirement.  His problems have impacted on his wife and children, who are all suffering from some type of mental illness as a result of his mental illness and alcoholism.  He is subject to fits of rage.  He has been unable to maintain employment in that he will always quit a job, or be fired because of a bad attitude.

In a 25 July 2000 letter, another of the applicant’s daughters stated that she was too young to be aware of her father’s behavior during the Vietnam era, but she stated that her father had to deal with alcoholism, mood swings, depression (possibly manic), irritability, unemployment, and anti-social behavior, during the majority of his adult life.  She said there was no support net at home while she was young.  She states that her youth was an unhappy time of pain and confusion.  

In a 31 July 2000 letter, the applicant encloses a letter from the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) concerning individual unemployability.  The DAV commented to him that the issue of individual unemployability was moot in his case.  The applicant provides extracts of moot case material from a law dictionary.  He also encloses a copy of a letter to the DAV concerning his case, stating among other things, that he had three Distinguished Flying Cross (DFC) awards for heroism, and two Bronze Star awards.  He stated that his DFC for heroism on 27 January 1967 is worthy of an upgrade to a Silver Star or a Distinguished Service Cross.  He volunteered for that mission and his helicopter took several hits during the rescue.  The applicant enclosed copies of his individual flight record while in Vietnam, three copies of the same certificate awarding him the Bronze Star Medal, a copy of the citation and the certificate awarding him the tenth through the twelfth oak leaf clusters to the Air Medal, a copy of the citation awarding him the DFC for extraordinary achievement on       27 January 1967, a copy of a certificate awarding him the DFC for heroism on that same date, a copy of a letter of congratulations from the Boeing Company for his part in the evacuation of seriously wounded personnel, a copy of a certificate and a citation awarding him the DFC for extraordinary achievement on 24 April 1967, and a copy of a certificate awarding him the DFC for heroism on that same date.   

In an 8 August 2000 letter, the applicant stated that he was awarded two DFC’s for different acts of heroism on the same date, one involving eight men, and one, six men.  He stated both should be upgraded to higher awards.  He enclosed copies of his DD Forms 214, copies of his three discharge certificates, and copies of certificates showing completion of various courses, e.g., ranger, pathfinder (twice), jumpmaster, etc.    
 
COUNSEL CONTENDS:  Counsel supports the applicant’s contentions and requests that the Board give careful and sympathetic consideration of all the evidence of record.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Army for three years on 26 July 1950 and was released from active duty on 25 July 1953 at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.  He reenlisted for three years on 13 April 1954; reenlisting again on                          26 September 1955, this time for six years.  

He completed jumpmaster training at Fort Bragg in October 1952.  In May 1995 he successfully completed ranger training at Fort Benning, Georgia.  He completed an Aerial Delivery Course from November to December 1954.

The applicant attended and successfully completed Officer Candidate School and on 28 August 1957 was appointed a second lieutenant of infantry in the Army Reserve, with concurrent call to active duty.  Subsequent to his commission, the applicant successfully completed aviation training, becoming qualified in both fixed and rotary wing aircraft.

The applicant had assignments in Germany with the 24th Infantry Division and later at Fort Rucker, Alabama with the Aviation Test Board.  

On 17 December 1963, while assigned to a unit of the 24th Infantry Division, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for driving while drunk, and leaving the scene of an accident. 

In June 1966 the applicant was assigned to the 228th Aviation Battalion of the   1st Cavalry Division (Air) in Vietnam, initially as a rotary wing aviator, then a maintenance platoon leader, and after that, a company commander.  On             1 May 1967 the applicant was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight on 27 January 1967. On 12 July 1967 he was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for meritorious service. On 22 July 1967 he was awarded the tenth through twelfth oak leaf clusters to the Air Medal.  On 10 August 1967 he was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight on            24 April 1967.  He completed his tour in Vietnam and in July 1967 was assigned to Fort Rucker.  In March 1969, the applicant was assigned to the 11th Aviation Group in Vietnam. The applicant was awarded the Purple Heart for wounds received in connection with military operations against a hostile force on            16 March 1969, while assigned to the 11th Aviation Group in Vietnam.

On 25 March 1969 the applicant’s parents wrote the President, stating that they had one son killed in Vietnam, and requested that the applicant be reassigned from Vietnam.  Based on DA policy in effect at that time (no involuntary second assignment to Vietnam, when a family member had been killed in Vietnam), the applicant was assigned to Korea in April of 1969.  He completed his tour in Korea, and in January 1970, he was again assigned to Fort Rucker.  On            14 September 1970 he was appointed a flight evaluator for five different aircraft. On 17 September 1970 the applicant was designated an instructor pilot.  His duties included that of the chief of an operations division and the chief of an instructor training division.  The applicant was promoted to lieutenant colonel on  26 August 1971. 

A 2 January 1970 medical record from a dispensary in Korea shows that the applicant was very anxious about rotation.  That record indicates that Valium and Seconal were prescribed.  A 17 November 1970 from a Fort Rucker medical record shows that the Valium was again prescribed, as it was in December of 1970.  Librium was prescribed on 18 August 1970, apparently for chest pain.   On 24 March 1971 a medical record shows an entry concerning Valium.

The applicant’s officer efficiency reports, during his first tour in Vietnam, as reflected by his rater and indorser, show an officer of outstanding ability, whose moral courage, physical stamina, and leadership had been tested under enemy fire.

His efficiency reports, while stationed at Fort Rucker, and subsequent to his Vietnam tour of duty, show an officer who performed his duties in an outstanding manner, who did so, as indicated in one report, despite severe personal stress – the death of his younger brother in Vietnam, and the disappointment over his inability to attend an advance service school.  A comment by his indorser included the remark that the applicant was an enthusiastic and willing officer, who took a keen personal interest in any assigned task.  Another report indicates that the applicant was the chief of the reliability test branch, supervising seven project officers involved in the conduct of tests on all types of Army aircraft, in addition to being the test manager for all CH-47 testing at Fort Rucker.  That report shows that the applicant performed his duties, to include directing the flight programs of new model aircraft, and meeting with representatives of higher headquarters and industry, in an outstanding manner.  A later report again shows outstanding performance of duty.  The report for his tour of duty in Korea shows an officer who demonstrated outstanding competence, with the indorser remarking that the applicant was the finest combination of aviator and manager that he had seen.  His reports while assigned to Fort Rucker in the early 1970’s prior to his retirement, are no less glowing, to include a remark on one report that he fully supported all social and civic activities of his department; a remark on another report, while assigned as the chief of the instructor training division, that no task had been too difficult nor any mission been neglected by the applicant; a remark on another report ending in August 1972 that both the applicant and his wife were active in both military and local civilian affairs and were a definite asset to the department; and remarks on the report ending on 30 June 1973 that the applicant had performed his duties in a superior manner, was involved with supervising the department staff of over 450 personnel, solving problems concerning 1000 in residence students participating in up to 51 programs of academic instructions.  That last report also indicated that the applicant took a direct personal interest with all concerned.

A 10 April 1973 report of medical examination indicates that the applicant was medically qualified for retirement with a physical profile serial of 1 1 1 1 1 1.  In the report of medical history that he furnished for the examination the applicant stated that his health was good.  In that report, when responding to the question of whether he had or did he then have frequent trouble sleeping, depression or excessive worry, loss of memory or amnesia, nervous trouble of any sort, or periods of unconsciousness, he checked “No” by each item.  That report shows, among other things, that the applicant had noticeable hoarseness for the past three months, had a past history of hearing loss, had swollen joints in childhood and at the present time, had a head injury in the 1950’s while swimming, had a history of hiatal hernia, and had back pain after lifting weights.  He indicated that he had or did have at one time, shortness of breath, cramps in his legs, and piles or rectal disease, among other things.  

On 19 April 1973 the applicant requested that he be relieved from active duty and placed on the retired list on 1 July 1973.  His request was approved.  The applicant retired on 30 June 1973 with 22 years, 2 months, and 18 days of service.  His DD Form 214, which covered the period from 28 August 1957 to his retirement date, indicates, in addition to the awards previously mentioned, two awards of the Army Good Conduct Medal, the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, the Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medal with 60 device, the Meritorious Unit Commendation, the Vietnam Service Medal, the National Defense Service Medal with 1st oak leaf cluster, the Armed Forces Reserve Medal, the Senior Army Aviation Badge, the Army Commendation Medal, the Ranger Tab, and the Master Parachute Badge.  

That form does not show award of the Pathfinder Badge, nor does it show that the applicant completed Ranger, Pathfinder, Jumpmaster, Aerial Delivery, or Officer Candidate School.
  
The applicant’s DA Form 66 (Officer Qualification Record) shows that he completed numerous Army Schools and courses throughout his military career, it shows that he had a high school equivalency education, and had completed      12 semester hours of college courses, and shows that, except for the years 1968 and 1970 the applicant maintained his flying status through at least 1 May 1973. 

In a 26 September 1990 letter to a VA adjudication officer, the applicant’s psychiatrist provided medical data in order that the applicant’s disability rating be reconsidered.  He stated that he had seen and evaluated the applicant on         11 different dates in 1990, and had concluded that the applicant had a multiple psychiatric diagnosis along with multiple physical problems.  He stated that the applicant had PTSD, a schizoaffective disorder, chronic ethanol abuse, and organic brain syndrome secondary to ethanol abuse (however, further psychological examination would be required to measure the degree of impairment).  The psychiatrist stated:

•	The applicant was discharged from the Army in June 1973.  The applicant indicated he began abusing alcohol from 1967 through 1985.  The psychiatrist stated that the alcohol was used primarily to tranquilize or numb him from his PTSD, but also to permit him to function.  He stated that he talked with the applicant’s wife, who related that her husband was a loner, never made friends, never involved himself in the family, and was extremely distant.  He came from a dysfunctional family, where no love or affection was demonstrated.  His parents were alcoholics and he was subjected to child abuse.  He lived an isolated, schizoid type of life.  He was able to control his schizophrenic symptoms by using alcohol. 
•	He joined AA and stopped drinking in 1985.  The applicant stated  (corroborated by his wife) that he was anhedonic and that he had suicidal and homicidal thoughts.  There was no relationship between himself and his wife. He was not involved with anyone of consequence.  He was not on any medication.  He admitted to hearing voices since 1985 when off all of his tranquilizers, feeling guilty, and going to AA initially, and walking out of the sessions.  He held no less than six to seven different jobs from 1985 through 1989, but could not persevere at any of them, indicating an ambulatory schizophrenic disorder.  He was also rapidly decompensating.
•	In January 1989 he had a frank psychosis, to include auditory hallucinations.  He was hospitalized, and had three other hospitalizations at the Mental Health Unit at Elgin Air Force Base in Florida.  Since then, he continued on outpatient treatment, and was placed on numerous tranquilizers and antidepressants, responding poorly to all of them.  He continued his isolated and withdrawn life, not being able to obtain or retain any work.  Since 1973 he has attempted at least 20 to 25 positions, to no avail.  He had poor control of his symptoms, and although not having any hallucinations, still developed some paranoid delusions, was extremely anhedonic and enervated.  He continued his lack of intimate relationships with family, friends, and others.  He has had several flare-ups over the years.  He was an emotional cripple suffering from a severe schizoaffective disorder following his discharge from the service.  His diagnosis was masked by alcohol abuse.  He was not functional from 1973 to the present.
•	Concerning the applicant’s PTSD, the psychiatrist relates the applicant’s experiences in Vietnam, stating that he was subjected to mortar and rocket attacks.  He related the incident in March 1969 when the applicant was wounded, and stated that subsequent to that incident the applicant stated that he could not sleep whenever artillery was fired.  He stated that the applicant yet has a hyper reaction to the sound of artillery.  He related an incident in which a helicopter crashed, killing five men, and the applicant felt responsible because he was the maintenance officer.  Another incident, in which he and another NCO were dropped off in a valley, and not picked up until late at night, was quite harrowing for the applicant, in that the applicant stated that he was terrified.  He stated that there were other incidents in which he had seen other men with their viscera exposed following shelling.  He stated that the applicant was unable to forgive himself for the death of his younger brother in Vietnam, thinking that were he there, his brother would not have done a tour in Vietnam.  He had seen persons who were recently wounded or killed in transporting numerous bodies.  His work was essentially picking up wounded men with a helicopter.  He made many jungle penetrations.
•	The applicant had traumatic events persistently re-experienced by recurrent distressing dreams of his bunker event.  When awakened by the dream, he was unable to get back to sleep.  When he found himself in the woods and heard choppers, he became disorganized and confused.
•	The applicant attempted to avoid thoughts and feelings associated with the trauma, in that he has lost complete interest in flying.  He has a marked diminished interest in significant activities.  He has no interpersonal relationships, and avoids people more intensely than he had previous to his tour in Vietnam.  Nothing holds his interest and nothing is important or significant to him.  He stated that he did not have love for his children.  He stated that he did not trust anyone and had no friends.  He also complained of a foreshortened future, that is, he did not expect a long life.
•	He had difficulty falling and staying asleep, and the only way to get at least five hours of sleep was through medication.  He was extremely irritable, unable to control his anger, and had difficulty concentrating.  He remained hypervigilant and had an exaggerated startle response.  He has a classical diagnosis of PTSD, delayed.  The applicant is barely existing and is a rather stoic individual, who likes to blend into the woodwork and had never called attention to his symptoms, until recently.  He is not functioning.

In a 10 September 1991 letter to a medical administrative officer at a VA outpatient clinic, that same psychiatrist stated that he had evaluated the applicant on 29 August 1991, and that applicant provided information concerning his child- hood, stating that his father was an alcoholic and that his mother beat him with every conceivable object.  The psychiatrist stated that the applicant was the only surviving child of a family of four.  He entered the Army in 1950, and advanced through the ranks to lieutenant colonel.  He has been totally unemployable since 1989.  He is the father of four children.  The psychiatrist related much of the same information as in his 26 September 1990 letter.  He added that his paranoid delusions were directed toward the apparent rapist of his wife, an incident that occurred many years ago, and that with those illusions, he had a homicidal intent.  He stated that the applicant starts a project, but lets it linger, and never finishes it.  He stated that the applicant quit going to AA, but maintained his sobriety.  He stated that the applicant had been diagnosed in a previous hospitalization with a schizoaffective disorder, chronic, and acute.  

In this letter, the psychiatrist stated that the applicant’s most striking feature was profound depression.  He avoided eye contact during a mental status examination, and showed no spontaneity.  The psychiatrist continued by describing the applicant’s actions and reactions during the examination, the applicant’s own descriptions of his condition, his feelings, and his recollections.  The psychiatric stated that the applicant described the depth of his anhedonia as literally being abstinent for at least one year.  He stated that the applicant admitted to having suicidal thoughts, feeling isolated, and being confused at times.  The psychiatrist again related the applicant’s experiences in Vietnam, and provided information similar to that in his September 1990 letter.  He stated that it would appear that the applicant fulfilled the diagnosis of a schizoaffective disorder, as well as PTSD, delayed type.  He stated that the applicant had not been aware of his dual diagnosis until he stopped drinking.  He stated that the applicant was severely incapacitated for social and industrial purposes. 

On 10 September 1991 the VA awarded the applicant a 70 percent service connected disability rating for PTSD effective from 22 February 1990.

On 11 May 1992 the VA informed the applicant that his service connected disability for PTSD was increased to 100 percent.

On 13 January 1997 the VA awarded the applicant a zero percent service connected disability rating for prostate cancer due to Agent Orange exposure effective 16 July 1996.  That rating indicated that a noncompensable evaluation was assigned in the absence of significantly disabling urinary incontinence or frequency, or whenever there was evidence of obstructive symptomatology with or without stricture disease requiring dilation one or two times per year.  In the   24 May 2000 letter forwarding that rating to this Board, the applicant stated that the radical prostatectomy of 21 June 1995 absolutely ruined his life, and that in view of the possible consequences and complications of metastasis of cancer to other parts of his body, he requested consideration for immediate evaluation and resolution of his claim, retroactive to the date of his retirement.

In a 10 August 2000 letter to this Board, a psychiatrist, a colleague of the psychiatrist who treated the applicant in 1990 and 1991, supported the applicant’s contention of PTSD, stating that the applicant exhibited a significant PTSD associated with combat trauma, exhibited disturbances in mood and thinking, and had been a heavy user of alcohol in self-medicating his disorder.  He stated that he saw the applicant as suffering from a major depressive disorder, with psychotic features, a dysthymic disorder, and a severe PTSD with some dissociative symptomatology. 

That psychiatrist recounted the applicant’s history, stated that he had been following him since the latter part of 1994 after his attending psychiatrist became ill and could not continue in practice, and stated that rather than a schizophrenic disorder, he believed he was suffering from major depressive disorder with psychotic features, and severe PTSD.  He stated that the applicant’s condition had been undiagnosed for several years because it was not recognized by the VA until 1980.  Once his condition was recognized as PTSD, he has been treated for a number of years, and as with so many veterans, the applicant attempted to hide his condition, self-medicate it, and conceal it, in that he did not realize what he was suffering from.  He stated that it was clear that his symptoms had been documented in records in terms of anxiety and sleep disturbance going back to the days prior to his retirement.  He stated, in effect, that the applicant’s case should be reviewed with a dating back to the start of his illness, or at least to the start of when the VA honored PTSD as a diagnosable condition.  He stated that the applicant’s treatment since 1994 has involved individual therapy to help him manage his anger and paranoia.  He has maintained his sobriety for years and done excellent work in trauma focused therapy.  He remains impaired by PTSD, but has had significant help and is more interested in having his case documented back to the start of his symptoms.  

PTSD, an anxiety disorder, was not recognized as a psychiatric disorder until 1980 with the publishing of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM) III.  The condition is described in the current DSM-IV, pages 424 through 427.  While PTSD has only been categorized by psychiatrists as a distinct diagnosis since 1980, it has, as early as the Civil War, been described in psychological literature, variously labeled as shell shock, soldier's heart, effect
syndrome, combat fatigue and traumatic neurosis.  During the period of time in question, similar psychiatric symptomatology was categorized as hysterical neurosis.  Although the current label of PTSD is of rather recent acceptance, the idea that catastrophes and tragedies can result in persistent emotional and psychological symptoms is common even among the lay public.  While PTSD was not recognized as a specific illness at the time of the applicant's separation from the service, the fact that an individual might not be fit for further military service because of psychosis, psychoneurosis, or neurological disorders was outlined in Army Regulation 40-501 which was in effect at the time of his separation.  The Army here established standards and procedures for determining fitness for retention and utilized those procedures and standards in evaluating individuals at that time.  The specific diagnostic label given to an individual's condition a decade or more after his discharge from the service may change, but any change does not call into question the application of then existing fitness standards.
 
Army Regulation 40-501, then in effect, prescribes the Army medical fitness standards.  Paragraph 10-3 states in pertinent part that an individual who is qualified for flying will undergo a medical examination during the month in which his birthday anniversary occurs.  Paragraph 10-26 sets forth administrative procedures applicable for flying duty medical examinations, and states that the prescribed type B medical examination will be conducted [for flying duty personnel].  A type B examination is a more comprehensive than a type A, one that other military personnel are required to undergo.

Chapter 4 of that regulation sets forth the medical conditions and physical defects which are considered causes for rejection for Army aviators.  Those conditions include psychoses, psychoneuroses, and personality disorders, e.g., abnormal emotional responses to situations of stress (either combat or noncombat), character behavior disorders, excessive use of alcohol or drugs, history of psychosis or attempted suicide, insomnia (severe and prolonged). 

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 provides that for an individual to be found unfit by reason of physical disability, he must be unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating.

Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 3-2b states in pertinent part that disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to soldiers whose service is interrupted and they can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service.  

That paragraph goes on to say that when a member is being separated by reason 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.

Army Regulation 635-40 was changed by Department of the Army message, dated 27 February 1973, to provide that when a member is undergoing evaluation because of a referral arising during processing for separation for reasons other than physical disability, his continued performance of duty until he is scheduled for separation creates a presumption that the member is fit for duty.
Title 38, United States Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service.  The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned.  Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides that the Good Conduct Medal is awarded to individuals who distinguish themselves by their conduct, efficiency and fidelity
during a qualifying period of active duty enlisted service.  This period is 3 years except in those cases when the period for the first award ends with the
termination of a period of Federal military service.  Although there is no automatic entitlement to the Good Conduct Medal, disqualification must be justified.  

Paragraph 3-11 provides the criteria for award of the Distinguished Flying Cross, and states that that medal is awarded to any person of the Army who distinguished himself by heroism or extraordinary achievement while participating in aerial flight.  The performance of the act of heroism must be evidenced by voluntary action above and beyond the call of duty.  The extraordinary achievement must have resulted in an accomplishment so exceptional and outstanding as to clearly set the individual apart from his comrades or from other persons in similar circumstances.  

The Distinguished Service Cross is awarded to a person who distinguished himself by extraordinary heroism not justifying the award of the Medal of Honor while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States.  The act or acts of heroism must have been so notable and have involved risk of live so extraordinary as to set the individual apart from his comrades.

The Silver Star is awarded to a person who, while serving with the Army, is cited for gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States while engaged in military operations involving conflict with an opposing foreign force.  The required gallantry, while of a lesser degree that than required for the Distinguished Service Cross, must nevertheless have been performed with marked distinction.

Army Regulation 635-5, then in effect, provides for the preparation of the          DD Form 214, and states in pertinent part, that service schools, including major courses which were successfully completed, during the period covered by the      DD Form 214, will be entered in item 25 of that form. 

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 applicant served in the Army for over 22 years, attended numerous military courses and schools, and advanced to the rank of lieutenant colonel, in spite of the lack of a college degree.  His service was near impeccable, as evidenced by the numerous awards that he received, and by his efficiency reports throughout his military career.

2.  His records do not indicate any medical condition incurred while entitled to receive basic pay which was so severe as to render the applicant medically unfit for retention on active duty.  At the time of his separation physical examination, competent medical authority determined that the applicant was then medically fit for retirement.  He himself stated that his health was good, and that he had not had problems with sleeping, had no depression or excessive worry, had no nervous trouble of any sort, etc.  Accordingly, the applicant was separated from active duty and retired for reasons other than physical disability.  

3.  The Board notes that the applicant had been prescribed medication in Korea, and also at Fort Rucker after his return from Korea in 1970.  The fact that he took these medications, however, would not necessarily be cause for a mental status evaluation prior to his retirement.  He requested retirement.  His physical examination was not cursory, as the applicant states, but could have been more thorough had the applicant made his supposed defects known.  Considering all the facts concerning the applicant’s military career, to include his voluntary request for retirement, there was no need for a mental status evaluation.   Nevertheless, had such an evaluation been given, his inference that he would have been found medically unfit is not supported by any evidence, despite his contentions.

4.  The Board does not dispute the contentions of the applicant, his psychiatrists, and family members concerning his experiences in Vietnam, and the trauma that he must have undergone by the loss of his brother.  Nor does it argue with the statements provided by the psychiatrists and by members of the applicant’s family that he did have, and now does have serious medical problems.  Nonetheless, those problems did not surface during his military career.  His record, as evidenced by his efficiency reports, shows that he must have been able to overcome any strain and distress that he experienced.  Except for one isolated incident, in 1963, there is no evidence that the applicant had abused alcohol, or any other drug.

5.  The applicant’s efficiency reports again, belie his contention that, prior to his retirement, he and his superior did not get along, that he had become mentally ineffective to perform his duty and had been that way for a long time, that he had been a drugged zombie, an ineffective person without any goals, or anything to look forward to.  An efficiency report after his return from Vietnam shows that he was an enthusiastic officer, who took a keen personal interest in any assigned task.  His report for his tour in Korea indicates that he was an outstanding officer. His reports at Fort Rucker prior to his retirement are also exceptional, indicating that he was an officer who paid attention to detail, that no task was too difficult for him, and that both he and his wife participated in military and civilian affairs.  His last report showed that he took a direct personal interest with all concerned.  These reports, his responsibilities and duties, as evidenced by those reports, in no way indicate an officer suffering from alcoholism or drug dependency, or show that he had a mental impairment.    

6.  The Board takes note that the applicant continued his flying duties after his tour in Vietnam, and that he was also an instructor pilot.  He may have experienced stress, anxiety, and depression; however, these conditions did not prevent him from flying or instructing others.  Because he was an Army aviator, he should have had annual, thorough medical examinations.  The conditions that he stated that he had, anxiety, alcoholism, nerves were shot, etc., would have kept him from flying.  Again, his record does reflect these problems. 

7.  The applicant's continued performance of duty raised a presumption of fitness which he has not overcome by evidence of any unfitting, acute, grave illness or injury concomitant with his separation.  His report of medical examination and his report of medical history that he furnished for the examination show that he was fit.  The Board again notes the applicant’s contentions, the psychiatric reports, dated some 17 years after his retirement, and the recent statements by family members.  Nonetheless, he performed his duties right up to his retirement, and his service was not interrupted because of any disability.  

8.  The award of VA compensation does not mandate disability retirement or separation from the Army.  The VA, operating under its own policies and regulations, may make a determination that a medical condition warrants compensation.  The VA is not required to determine fitness for duty at the time of separation.  The Army must find a member physically unfit before he can be medically retired or separated.

9.  The VA is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service.  The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned.  Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, the applicant's medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify him for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency.
10.  An award of a VA rating does not establish entitlement to medical retirement or separation.  The VA is not required to find unfitness for duty.  Operating under its own policies and regulations, the VA awards ratings because a medical condition is related to service, i.e., service-connected.  Furthermore, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings.  The Army must find unfitness for duty at the time of separation before a member may be medically retired or separated.

11.  The applicant did not have any medically unfitting disability which required physical disability processing.  Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability retirement or separation.  

12.  The applicant was awarded the DFC for extraordinary achievement on two occasions, for his actions on 27 January 1967 and again on 24 April 1967.  Orders awarding him those medals are contained in his record.  The applicant himself submitted copies of citations for both those awards.  He also submitted copies of certificates showing award of the DFC for heroism for both these same dates.  There are no orders showing awards of the DFC for heroism, nor are there any citations reflecting awards for heroism.  His request to upgrade his DFC to either a Silver Star or a Distinguished Service Cross is not accepted.

13.  The applicant enlisted in the Army on three occasions and as indicated by the discharge certificates he submits with his applicant, was discharged on three occasions; however, except for the first award, the Army Good Conduct Medal is awarded for a period of three years of service.  He was awarded that medal for his first three years of service, from 1950 to 1953, and received a second award for his service from 1954 to 1957.  The fact that he was discharged in1955 in order to reenlist does not entitle him to an award of the Army Good Conduct Medal.  He is not entitled to a third award of that medal. 

14.  The applicant completed Ranger, Pathfinder, Jumpmaster, Aerial Delivery, and Officer Candidate School, prior to the dates covered by his DD Form 214 at the time of his retirement.  Consequently, those schools and courses were not required to be entered on that form, in accordance with the regulation in effect at that time.  His DD Form 214 in this respect is correct. 

15.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.   

16.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

17.  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

___mvt__  ___kwl___  ___ew___  DENY APPLICATION

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

NOTE:  The applicant is entitled to have the Pathfinder Badge entered on his    DD Form 214.  The Army Review Boards Agency in St. Louis will be requested to correct his DD Form 214 to add this entry.

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030139	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000822	
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.  177	108.00	
2.	107.00	
3.	110.00	
4.	100.00	
5.		
6.