MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            17 April 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002079499

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		Member	
	Mr. Ronald J. Weaver		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:  In effect, that her records be corrected to reflect that she was retired by reason of physical disability.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she was unjustly discharged by reason of a personality disorder instead of physical disability.  She goes on to state that she was under medical care at the time, that she had a rod sticking out of her foot and she was never acknowledged for her rescue of 25 women, which resulted in her discharge.  She further states that she was scheduled to take 30 days of convalescent leave but was discharged before this happened and had to live the best way she could despite the fact that she could not work and take care of her children.  In support of her application she submits a copy of a picture of a bandaged foot and documents from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) showing that she has been awarded disability compensation by that agency.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records, though somewhat incomplete, show:

She initially enlisted in the United States Naval Reserve on 30 April 1992 and served until she was honorably discharged on 25 May 1993.  She then enlisted in the Texas Army National Guard on 26 May 1993 and served as a petroleum supply specialist until she was honorably discharged on 12 April 1994.

She enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 April 1994, for a period of 3 years and training as a wheeled vehicle repairer.  She completed her advanced individual training at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, and was transferred to Germany on 13 July 1996.

On 21 October 1997, she reenlisted for a period of 4 years and assignment to Hawaii.  She was transferred to Hawaii on 10 July 1998, where she was assigned to a maintenance company as a wheel vehicle repairer.

The facts and circumstances surrounding her administrative discharge are not present in the available records.  However, her records do contain a duly constituted report of separation (DD Form 214) signed by the applicant.  It shows that she was honorably discharged on 12 May 2000, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, due to a personality disorder.  She had served 6 years, 7 months and 5 days of total active service and was paid $6,148.96 in one-half involuntary separation pay.

The documents provided by the applicant with her application consists of a VA Rating Decision dated 26 March 2001, which grants her a combined disability compensation (80%) beginning 13 May 2000.

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 635-40, Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation, provides that the mere presence of an impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability.  In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the member may reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, rank, grade or rating.  

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13 provides the criteria for discharge because of a personality disorder.  It states, in pertinent that a soldier may be separated for personality disorders that interfere with assignment to or performance of duty.  The diagnosis of personality disorder must have been established by a physician trained in Psychiatry and psychiatric diagnosis.  Separation because of personality disorder is authorized only if the diagnosis concludes that the disorder is so severe that the soldier’s ability to function effectively in the military environment is significantly impaired.

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 the absence of evidence of the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative discharge was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. Accordingly, it must also be presumed that the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

2.  The Board has noted the applicant's contentions; however, she has failed to show through the evidence submitted and the evidence of record that separation through medical channels was warranted at the time of separation or that she was not found fit for separation.

3.  The fact that the VA, in its discretion, has awarded the applicant a disability rating is a prerogative exercised within the policies of that agency.  It does not, in itself, establish physical unfitness for Department of the Army purposes.

4.  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 this requirement.

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

__hbo___  __rjw____  __wtm___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002079499	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/04/17	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  177	108.0000/MED RETIREMENT	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.