MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:             29 December 1999                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999034644

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		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:  Reconsideration of the Board’s denial of his request to change the reason for his discharge from unsuitability, personality disorder, to physical disability.

APPLICANT STATES:  He reiterates his prior contention that action to discharge him was only initiated after he was injured in line of duty, and that the unsuitability discharge was only initiated because it was easier and faster than processing him for a medical discharge.  He adds a new argument, that since he was not medically qualified to be enlisted his enlistment was erroneous.  Therefore, his discharge should be corrected from unsuitability, personality disorder, to erroneous enlistment.  He states that he never concealed his medical condition at the time of his enlistment.

In support of his new argument he submits selected excerpts of a compensation and pension mental status evaluation by the VA dated 27 April 1998.  Entries made in that evaluation include that the applicant had received psychiatric treatment from age 11, and that “I believe that [the applicant] has a severe personality disorder, that this likely predated his time in the military, but that is very surprising to me that the military accepted him into service.”  Also entered in the evaluation are the comments “I believe that although he denies delusions, he has delusions and that these delusions are very much of a paranoid nature.  He doesn’t see them as delusions because he believes they are true.  These delusions revolve about his not being treated fairly, his being slighted, agencies and important people with power being out to harass him and not to give him a fair deal.” And “He is extremely ligigimous (sic, “litigious”) and has filed suits against, it appears, almost every employer he has had.  He finds things that happened where it appears he is not being treated fairly or has been slighted.  This leads to problems with his employer.  This usually leads to separation from his job and then he will file some or another kind of lawsuit.”

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

The applicant’s military records were incorporated into prior considerations by both the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) and this Board, as follows:

- On 21 September 1964 his request to change his discharge to a medical discharge was disapproved by the Board.  In his request he charged that he was a whole person when he entered on active duty.  It was only after he was injured in line of duty did his commander initiate action to discharge him for unsuitability, personality disorder. 

- On 24 November 1965 the staff of the Board denied his request for reconsideration based on the absence of any new evidence.

- On 27 March 1974 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied his request to upgrade his discharge from General to Honorable conditions.

- On 20 September 1976 the ADRB upgraded the applicant’s discharge to fully honorable.

- On 29 February 1984 this Board denied his request for reconsideration of its denial of his initial request to change the reason for his discharge.  The applicant had not submitted any new evidence or argument in his request for reconsideration.

- On 5 November 1984 the staff of the Board denied a request for reconsideration of that denial based on the absence of any new evidence and advised the applicant that any future requests for reconsideration which did not contain any new evidence would be responded to with a copy of that letter.  The basis for that request for reconsideration was the staff of the Board “fraudulently” misquoting him.

- On 11 January 1989 the Board recommended that the record of nonjudicial punishment accepted by the applicant for being AWOL be deleted from his records based on current standards of filing such documents.

- On 2 March 1992 the staff of the Board denied another request for reconsideration based on the absence of any new evidence.  In that request he claimed that the narrative reason for separation, unsuitability, personality disorder, was improper since he did not have a mental problem.  In support of that application he submitted a letter from the VA which stated that “There is no evidence of a current thought, mood or personality disorder.”

- On 5 August 1994 the staff of the Board denied another request for reconsideration based on the absence of any new evidence.  In that request he claimed that the basis for the finding of personality disorder was a military physician’s diagnosis that he suffered from schizophrenia, a diagnosis which was refuted by his VA physician.

- On 30 September 1994 the staff of the Board denied another request for reconsideration based on the absence of any new evidence.  In that request he repeated his claim that the basis for the finding of personality disorder was a military physician’s diagnosis that he suffered from schizophrenia, a diagnosis which was refuted by his VA physician.  

- On 29 September 1998 the staff of the Board denied another request for reconsideration based on the absence of any new evidence.  In support of that request he submitted a letter addressed to him from a veterans legal group which stated that while they agreed with him that the reason for his discharge should be changed, they would not represent him.

The basic facts of the foregoing board considerations were that the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 July 1964.  On 24 July 1964 he was referred to Mental Hygiene by his commander due to his nervousness, his going AWOL, and his disobeying direct orders.  The applicant told the psychiatrist examining him that he had been seen by a psychiatrist since age 11 for adjustment problems, mainly his inability to tolerate authority; that he would continue to disregard military regulations unless discharged; and that he had been fired from five different jobs he held in the 6 months preceding his enlistment.  The psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant as having a schizoid personality with paranoid features which would not warrant consideration for a physical disability separation and recommended that the applicant be discharged administratively due to his personality disorder.

On 30 July 1964 the applicant fell from a fire escape at his barracks and injured his back and feet.  While hospitalized his progress notes are annotated with statements including “Very bizarre behavior”, “Acting very belligerent toward nurses”, and “Refused to have a.m. care.  Whines and cries easily.  Requires much persuasion.”

The applicant was treated for his injuries and was given medication for his behavior problem.  In a progress note dated 18 August 1964 it was stated “Absolutely no back discomfort, no left heel swelling or tenderness.  Behavior problem fairly well controlled with mellaril.”  A progress note dated 2 September 1964 it was stated that “Back films show no compression progression L1&2, no back complaints.”  A progress note dated 9 September 1964 indicates “Walks well.  Slight limp.  OK for discharge.”

On 14 September 1964 the applicant was given a separation physical examination in which he was diagnosed as having a schizoid personality with paranoid features, but was determined medically qualified for retention.

On 21 September 1964 he was given a general discharge due to unsuitability, behavior disorder.

On 30 July 1965 the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force.  He was given a general discharge on 1 September 1965 due to fraudulent entry (concealment of prior service).

On 29 April 1977 the Air Force DRB upgraded the applicant’s discharge to fully honorable because “The applicant’s history of character and behavior disorder which affects his evaluation of responsibility and the President’s desire that discharges be reexamined in a spirit of compassion.”
Records obtained from the VA show that the applicant was rated 10 percent disabled for residuals, fracture of his right foot, and 10 percent for lumbrosacral strain with history of fracture of his l-2 disc (back).  He was also found to have had a schizophrenic reaction, simple type, with a finding that he was mentally competent, but that condition was found to not be service connected, that it existed prior to his entry into the military.

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

1.  In three of the applicant’s last four requests for reconsideration (prior to his current request) he based his requests on a document from a VA physician which stated that he did not have any psychiatric problems or any personality disorders.  The applicant had stated in those applications was that he took umbrage at the use of the term personality disorder on his discharge since he never had any mental problems or personality disorders.  Now he submits a VA physician’s statement which totally contradicts the previous VA physician’s statement.  

2.  Based on the conflicting nature of those two psychiatric statements, and the lengthy period of time between his discharge and the date those statements were prepared, the Board cannot accept either of them as a basis for changing the applicant’s discharge to a discharge for erroneous enlistment.

3.  The applicant’s contention that he was medically disqualified due to injuries he incurred in line of duty should have resulted in his medical discharge is again not accepted by the Board.  His injuries were healing well, there was no indication of any progression of his back injury, and he was determined medically qualified for retention.  The applicant’s medical qualification is again clearly demonstrated by the fact that he passed an entrance physical examination in the Air Force 10 months after his discharge from the Army.

4.  The applicant’s demonstrated behavior while he was on active duty in the Army clearly supports a finding that he had a personality disorder of such severity to warrant his discharge.  Since personality disorders are not medically disqualifying, he was not medically boarded.  There is no error or injustice in that scenario.

5.  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

_gpd____  _clg_____  _cjp_______  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999034644	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19991229	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	108.04	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.