ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 May 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170017232 APPLICANT REQUESTS: in effect, entry into the physical disability evaluation system so he can be treated and evaluated for disabilities of post-traumatic stress disorder and hearing loss. The applicant also requests to appear before the Board. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states he tried to be seen at the Department of Veterans Affairs about 18 years ago, but was turned away because he had private insurance through his work place. He continues by stating that because of his military occupational specialty and active engagement with weapons systems and tactical use to obtain knowledge and information, he was exposed to things, places and people. He was told at the time to forget it all as if it never happened when in fact things did happen. He does remember and he cannot forget. He concludes by saying his mind won’t shut off, it’s as if it is on autopilot. 3. In the process of entering the service, he underwent an entrance physical completing Standard Form (SF) 93 (Report of Medical History) wherein he stated he was in excellent health. When completing SF 93, he indicated he suffered from depression or excessive worry and had nervous trouble. He also indicated he had eye trouble, a head injury and asthma. Within his medical record is a civilian treatment summary from a hospital showing the applicant was in- patient status from 30 March 1983 to 27 April 1983 for chemical dependency. He had completed three phases of Alcohol Anonymous and was working on the fourth phases. He had been receptive toward treatment and would continue treatment in an out-patient status. The summary concludes by stating, "Patient has knowledge of his illness and motivation to stay sober." 4. The physical examining official noted on the applicant’s SF 93 he wore glasses, suffered a mild concussion, and had asthma all as a child. He was recently divorced which appeared to support his history of depression. The examining official noted the applicant had been hospitalized for 30 days. 5. There is a 12 July 1983 letter from a medical doctor to a Navy recruiting official showing the applicant had been his patient since 26 May 1981. The applicant was hospitalized and then discharged himself against medical advice after only 2 days. He was readmitted the same day as his self-discharge and remained hospitalized from 28 May to 9 July 1981 with a diagnosis of dysthymic disorder. In conclusion he stated, "[The applicant] made considerable improvement over his condition at the time of his admission to the hospital. His depression abated and he was able to gain considerable understanding and insight into his feelings. [He] felt the prognosis for [the applicant] was good.” 6. On 27 July 1983 the local military entrance processing station referred the applicant to psychiatry for an evaluation because the applicant had a history of alcohol abuse and severe depression requiring 60 days of hospitalization. [It appears there was an earlier period, but the record lacks evidence to show when and where.] The examining psychiatrist restated the applicant’s medical history to include identifying the fact the applicant probably began drinking at age 13 and had lost jobs due to alcohol related incidents. At the time he showed no signs of depression and implied he had stopped drinking. His depression appears to have been situational as he was recently divorced and there was a history of alcohol abuse in his family. The psychiatrist concluded by finding the applicant’s conditions acceptable and meeting military medical entrance standards. 7. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 August 1984. He completed training and served as a cavalry scout in military occupational specialty 19D. On or about 29 December 1984, the applicant was reassigned from Fort Knox, Kentucky to Korea, his first duty station. 8. On 18 September 1985, the applicant was enrolled in the Army Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program for alcohol abuse based on his commander’s referral. He was enrolled in the Track II program. 9. A 15 October 1985 note on a SF 600 (Health Record – Chronological Record of Medical Care) shows he was prescribed Antabuse. He was seen again on 14 November 1985 for a prescription refill for Antabuse. 10. On 23 February 1986, the applicant suffered a closed head injury while under the influence of alcohol. He also suffered scalp lacerations as recorded on a DA Form 2173 (Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status). It appears he had an altercation with another individual that led to his injuries. By Secretarial authority his condition was found to be in the line of duty. 11. His medical record shows on 23 February 1986 he was admitted to the hospital with a blood alcohol content of 0.375 and was comatose. A consultation sheet shows the medical doctor’s impression was the applicant’s alcohol abuse was continuous and now was manifested by blackouts and impairment in social and occupational functioning due to his alcohol abuse. He was referred for further evaluation and recommendation to restart Antabuse. 12. On 24 February 1986, he underwent a mental status evaluation due to misconduct. During the evaluation his behavior was considered normal, he was fully alert, fully oriented and his mood or affect was unremarkable. His thought content was normal and his memory was good. The examining official found the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings, was mentally responsible and met the retention requirements of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3. He remarked the applicant had a long history of alcohol abuse with multiple treatment and rehabilitation failures. He acknowledged the applicant had a history of depression that existed prior to service that was attributed to his divorce. He concluding by saying the applicant denied suicidal ideation even though his life situation was highly stressful. 13. Also on 24 February 1986, he underwent a separation physical examination. A SF 88 (Report of Medical Examination) was prepared showing he was found qualified for separation or retention with no limiting physical profiled. His psychological factor was one with no limitations. 14. On 6 March 1986, he was seen and evaluated for a history of episodic alcohol abuse and dependence. He was enrolled in Track II and was pending admittance to a residential treatment facility for the in-patient rehabilitation program or Track III. He was prescribed Antabuse. 15. On 24 July 1986, an entry in his medical record shows he was taking Antabuse. 16. On 10 February 1987, he was medically screened and cleared to return to the continental United States. 17. A review of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows he was released from active duty effective 25 February 1987. Filed in his record is Member 1 copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) showing he was separated on 25 February 1987 and he was not transferred to the U.S. Army Reserves to complete his statutory service obligation. His record does not contain a copy of a separation packet nor the Service copy of his DD Form 214. Therefore, his character of service and his narrative reason for separation are unknown. 18. His DA Form 2-1 shows in Section III (Service, Training and Other Dates), item 18 (Appointments and Reductions) the following pertinent information: * promotion to specialist four (SP4)/pay grade E-4 on 21 August 1985 * reduction to private (PVT)/pay grade E-1 on 28 February 1986 * advancement to PV2/pay grade E-2 on 1 September 1986 * advancement to private first class (PFC)/pay grade E-3 on 1 October 1986 19. His DD Form 214 shows the following pertinent entries: * item 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) – PFC * item 4b (Pay Grade) – E-3 * item 12h (Effective Date of Pay Grade) – 1 October 1986 20. His military personnel record does not contain his promotion or reduction documents. 21. On 29 November 2017, the staff of the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) sent a letter to the applicant requesting he provide a copy of his medical documents supporting his claim that he has post-traumatic stress disorder presumably related to his military service. He did not respond. 22. On 12 April 2018, the ARBA staff psychologist provided an advisory opinion wherein he restated the applicant’s significant medical encounters with alcohol substance abuse both prior to service and while in service. Notwithstanding the applicant’s history with alcohol substance abuse, the advisory found the available documentation showed the applicant met medical retention standards for all medical conditions and there was no indication for physical disability evaluation system processing. There is no available evidence supporting a change to his narrative reason for separation or his separation code. A copy of the complete medical advisory was provided to the Board for their review and consideration. 23. The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion on 12 April 2018 and given an opportunity to submit comments. He responded by providing a rebuttal statement. He stated that the reference made to a hospital stay in South Korea was because he was there solely for alcohol abuse is wrong. In the medical report nor in his "jump records" does it reveal that he had been beaten to unconsciousness. He states I was unconscious for 3 days. There is no mention of that, no mention of the head injury. No mention of [his] swollen face from [his] eye to [his] jaw. Nothing about the concussion due to having [his] head slammed repeatedly to the floor. That’s when [he] lost consciousness, not, past-out (sic). 24. After having difficulty with Navy recruiting personnel, he spoke to Army recruiters. When he asked if the Army would take him, it seems all the Army recruiters wanted to know was if he had a warrant for his arrest. When he told them no, the Army recruiters started to work with him saying he required no waivers. (It is presumed the Navy appeared to have a medical waiver requirement.) When he spoke to his Army recruiter, he was up front with them about his drinking, nightmares, and being diagnosed with manic/depression. He states the recruiters appeared to laugh off his drinking problem by making the remark, "If you think you have a drinking problem now, wait until your discharge." He concludes by saying, in effect, the Army knew he was mentally ill before he entered the service. They, the Army, also knew he had a drinking problem yet the Army accepted him. He states he served in Bosnia and the Philippines, yet the advisory does not show his service in these two duty locations. While he was gone, his fiancée committed suicide because she thought he would not return. He asserts the Army is only covering its tracks. 25. A review of his available military personnel records to include his DA Form 2-1 does not show he served in Bosnia or the Philippines. His only foreign service recorded on his DA Form 2-1 is Korea from on or about 29 December 1984 to 24 February 1987.] BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board determined that relief was not warranted. Based upon the medical advisory’s finding that there is no available evidence supporting a change to his narrative reason for separation, the Board concluded that there was no error or injustice which would warrant making a change to the applicant’s record. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING X X X DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. 5/21/2019 X CHAIRPERSON Signed by: I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) in effect at the time, established the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) and set forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that applied in determining whether a Soldier was unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating. The mere presence of 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 reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, rank, grade, or rating. The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably perform his or her duties and assign an appropriate disability rating before he or she can be medically retired or separated. For a Soldier found unfit for duty with a disability rating of less than 30 percent, they will be separated with severance pay under the provisions of Title 10 USC 1203 or 1206. 3. Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. The regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence