PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  3 February 1999              
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999015915

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred K. McCoy		Member	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		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)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that his general discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct be corrected to show that he was medically discharged.

3.  The applicant states in effect, that he believes he should have received a medical discharge based on his schizophrenia, nervous condition and Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) medical records.

4.  On 15 May 1991, he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for a period of 4 years and military occupational specialty 55B (Ammunition Specialist).  The highest pay grade he achieved was pay grade E-4.

5.  Between May 1991 and March 1993, the applicant received awards for meritorious achievements and outstanding dedication to duty.  In March 1993, he was promoted to pay grade E-4, with a waiver, ahead of his peers. 

6.  On 20 May 1993, the applicant was diagnosed as having an adjustment disorder with anxious mood.  Between December 1993 and May 1994, the quality of his service diminished and he received counseling for various offenses: failure to repair (multiple), disobeying a lawful order (multiple), and failure to be at his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time (multiple).  On 
6 December 1993, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of obtaining services under false pretense.  He was sentenced to reduction from pay grade 
E-4 to pay grade E-3.  

7.  On 7 March 1994, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on four separate occasions.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-3 to pay grade E-2, and 14 days restriction and extra duty.  

8.  On 26 April 1994, he was convicted by a summary court-martial of failure to go on five separate occasions, failure to follow a lawful order on seven separate occasions, for wrongfully wearing pay grade E-4 rank and for wrongfully wearing pay grade E-3 rank.  His sentence included reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1, forfeiture of pay and confinement at hard labor for 30 days.

9.  On 3 May 1994, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct-pattern of misconduct.  The commander further notified the applicant that this chapter was contingent upon a favorable medical examination on 13 May 1994. 
10.  On 5 May 1994, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation by a professionally trained psychologist.  The diagnosis indicated that he suffered from a personality disorder with paranoid, narcissistic features.  Further, he was diagnosed to have a characterological behavioral disorder that was a deeply ingrained, maladaptive pattern of behavior of long duration, which interfered with his ability to perform his duty.  His condition was diagnosed to be so severe that his ability to function effectively in a military environment was significantly impaired.  The recommendation was for expeditious administrative separation.

11.  On 6 May 1994, the applicant acknowledged that he understood the basis for the contemplated administrative separation action and its effects and the rights available to him.  He did not submit a statement on his behalf and he was not entitled to consideration or personal appearance by a board of officers.

12.  On 13 May 1994, the applicant underwent a second psychiatric evaluation as a result of his processing for discharge.  The examining official diagnosed him to have had a ”personality disorder in the past couple of months.” “Resolved.”

13.  Competent authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, with a general discharge.  The approving authority’s action is undated.  On 20 May 1994, the applicant was discharged.  He had completed 
2 years, 11 months, and 12 days of active military service.

14.  In connection with his application, the Medical Advisor to this Board, opined (COPY ATTACHED), in essence, that the applicant’s problem with his left knee existed prior to enlistment as a result of a football injury in 1988.  There is no surgical history and the applicant was found qualified for enlistment.  There is nothing in the applicant’s record to indicate that his condition was aggravated by his military service.  Additionally, the applicant was diagnosed to suffer from both an adjustment disorder and from a personality disorder.  A personality disorder may render an individual administratively unfit rather than unfit because of physical disability.  An adjustment disorder “due to acute or special stress do not render an individual unfit because of physical disability, but may be the basis for administrative separation if recurrent and causing interference with military duty.”

15.  The above advisory opinion was referred to the applicant for comment or rebuttal, but he failed to respond.

16.  Evidence of record indicates that on 2 May 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade because his medical records were not available for that board’s review.

17.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter l4 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may also be awarded.

18.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-13 provides, in part, that separation is because of a personality disorder, the service of a soldier separated per this paragraph will be characterized as honorable unless an entry level separation is required under chapter 3, section III.  A general discharge may be awarded to a soldier who has been convicted of an offense by general court-martial in the current enlistment, period of obligated service, or any extension thereof.

19.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-3 provides, in part, when the separation of soldiers for the convenience of the Government is the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army (SA).  Except as delegated by this regulation or by special Department of the Army directives, it will be accomplished only by the SA’s authority.  The separation of any soldier of the Army under this authority will be based on a SA determination that separation is in the best interests of the Army. 

20.  Title 10, United States Code, at chapter 61, provides for 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.  However, a disqualifying medical condition existing prior to entrance into active service is not a basis to determine eligibility for a medical discharge

21.  Title 38, United States Code, section 310 and 331, permits the DVA to award compensation for a medical condition(s) which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  The DVA, however, is not required by law to determine medical fitness for further military service.  The DVA, 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 DVA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The discharge proceedings were conducted properly at the time of separation.

2.  On 5 May 1994, a mental status evaluation revealed that the applicant was medically qualified for discharge under the provisions of chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-200 for personality disorder.  The recommendation was that the applicant be separated because he suffered from a severe personality disorder that rendered him unsuited for further military service.  However, 1 week later, on 13 May 1994, a second mental status evaluation determined the applicant’s condition to have been resolved and he was diagnosed to have no disqualifying medical or physical disorders.  

3.  The Board concludes that the applicant was medically fit for entrance on active duty and he neither incurred nor did he have a condition that was aggravated by active military service.  Therefore, there is no basis for a medical discharge.

4.  The applicant served honorably for 29 of his 35 months of service.  It was only during the last 6 months of service that the quality of his service was diminished below acceptable levels.  While his diagnosed personality/adjustment disorders were not so severe as to warrant discharge through medical channels, the Board concluded that his psychological condition may have interfered with his ability to serve as a satisfactory soldier.  

5.  Further, while the applicant’s command had the right to select the most appropriate discharge reason and authority, the Board is not convinced that a discharge for misconduct was warranted in this case.  While the Board does not condone the applicant’s misconduct, his diagnosed personality/adjustment  disorder would appear to have warranted further consideration in the discharge process.

6.  In view of the foregoing, the Board finds that the characterization of discharge was too harsh and concludes that discharge by reason of Secretarial Authority, under the provisions of paragraph 5-3, AR 635-200 is the most appropriate course of action in this case.  
7.  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.

8.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected, but only as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:

	a.  by showing that the general discharge of the individual concerned on
20 May 1994 is void and without force or effect; and 

b.  by showing that he was honorably discharged on 20 May 1994, in accordance with paragraph 5-3, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of Secretarial Authority.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied 

BOARD VOTE:  

SAC_____  FKM_____  MDM__ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  _______ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  _______ DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AC97-0111/AR1999015915	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990203	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19940520	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chapter 13	
DISCHARGE REASON	Misconduct	
BOARD DECISION	GRANTSECRETARIAL AUTHORITY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	He feels he should have received a medical discharge based on schizophrenia	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.