MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           15 March 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999030178

	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.

	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Member	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		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 her discharge be changed to a medical discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  That about 13 months prior to her discharge she began to exhibit emotional instability at work but she was prevented from going to stress management classes because she was told her job was so critical and she was the only one who was competent to do it.  Finally she was allowed to go to a stress class.  When she reported to Mental Health, she was told she needed a psychiatrist, a psychologist, and perhaps a stint in the hospital for her mental condition.  She went to a psychologist on a regular basis and was prescribed medication.  Her chain of command just wanted to get rid of her and her problem. She was led to believe it would be best for her to volunteer to be discharged; that way she would be granted a medical discharge and have medical coverage for the rest of her life.  She was tricked into believing she was getting a medical when actually she was getting a regular honorable discharge.  After she was discharged, the VA examined her for her mental condition and for her physical problems.  The VA gave her 10 percent for her bipolar condition and 10 percent each for her right knee and back, which she injured while in the Army.  The VA recently increased her bipolar disorder disability rating to 70 percent.

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

She enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 March 1996.  She completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 92A (Automated Logistic Specialist).

On 17 March 1998, the applicant completed a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation.

On 17 April 1998, after coming up positive during urinalysis testing, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for wrongfully using marijuana/methamphetamines. 

On 11 May 1998, a mental status evaluation conducted by a colonel psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant with Personality Disorder not otherwise specified.

On 19 May 1998, the applicant’s commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-13, Personality Disorder.

On 19 May 1998, the applicant consulted with counsel and acknowledged notification of the action.  She elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf. 

On 1 June 1998, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be discharged with an Honorable Discharge Certificate. 
On 17 July 1998, the applicant was discharged, with an honorable characterization of service, in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, personality disorder.  She had completed    2 years, 4 months and 12 days of creditable active service with no lost time.

On an unknown date, the VA awarded the applicant service-connected disability for major depressive disorder (10 percent); lumbosacral strain for characteristic painful or limited motion; and retropatellar pain syndrome, right knee (10 percent). 

The VA changed the applicant’s evaluation of major depressive disorder to bipolar disorder and increased the disability rating to 70 percent on 15 June 1999, the date of her VA outpatient treatment which showed increased disability. Her other ratings remained the same.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5, paragraph 5-13, sets the policy and prescribes procedures for separating members with a personality disorder (not amounting to a disability) that interferes with assignment to or performance of duty when so diagnosed by a physician trained in psychiatry and psychiatric diagnosis.   

Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability.  The regulation defines “physically unfit” as unfitness due to physical disability.  The unfitness is of such a degree that a soldier is unable to perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank or rating in such a way as to reasonably fulfill the purpose of his or her employment on active duty.  Chapter 3 states that the mere presence of an impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability.  It is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the soldier reasonably may be expected to perform. 

Army Regulation 40-501 governs medical fitness standards for enlistment, retention and separation.  Paragraph 3-35 states that a personality disorder may render an individual administratively unfit rather than unfit because of physical disability.  Interference with performance of effective duty in association with these conditions will be dealt with through appropriate administrative channels. 

Title 38, U. S. 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.

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.  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.

2.  The applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder by a psychiatrist as required by regulation.  Considering the rank of the psychiatrist, colonel, the Board presumes he was competent in making this evaluation.  By regulation, interference with performance of effective duty in association with these conditions will be dealt with through appropriate administrative channels, not through medical channels.  The Board also notes, from the applicant’s own statement, that her duty section felt she was fit for duty since she was prohibited from attending stress management class because she was the only competent person available to do her job.  The Board must presume from this that she was not unfit for duty.  

3.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize her rights. 

4.  The Board finds that the applicant’s contention that she was misled into believing she would have medical coverage for the rest of her life is unsupported. Although she was appropriately given an administrative discharge, her disability was service connected.  The VA, whose mission it is to provide benefits to include medical benefits to military veterans, will provide medical coverage for her.

5.  The VA’s initial disability rating for the applicant’s mental, back and knee conditions was 10 percent for each disability.  Again, the Board finds that there is no evidence to show that any of these ratings meant that she was unfit for duty at the time of her separation from the Army.  The rating action by the VA does not necessarily demonstrate an error or injustice on the part of the Army.  The VA, operating under its own policies and regulation, assigns disability ratings as it sees fit.  Any rating action by the VA does not compel the Army to change its discharge accordingly. 

6.  The Board notes that the applicant’s disability rating for her mental condition was increased to 70 percent on 15 June 1999.  However, the increase in the rating was due to her VA outpatient treatment which showed increased disability. Again, there is no evidence to show that she was so disabled at the time of her separation.

7.  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

__rvo___  __mkp___  __vbc___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030178	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000315	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.