APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his separation as a result of a personality disorder be changed to a separation which would enable him to pursue a career in law enforcement.

APPLICANT STATES:  While deployed to Panama his unit first sergeant and platoon sergeant “set out to make an example” of him when all he wanted was help for his wife.  In a statement rendered in support of his request to the Army Discharge Review Board he noted that he married shortly before his deployment to Panama and then discovered that he had several hundred dollars in bad checks and that his mother-in-law was ill.  He indicates that while on duty members of his chain of command asked him what was wrong and the next thing he knew he was being referred for a psychiatric evaluation and was separated from the military. The applicant stated that members of his chain of command received UCMJ actions for the way they treated him but no one would help him.

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

He was a member of the Army National Guard from November 1985 until April 1987 when he enlisted in the Army.  He entered active duty on 14 May 1987 and was assigned to Fort Carson, Colorado as a military policeman.

His service medical record indicate he was seen by medical personnel in July 1987 following an episode “of totally losing his temper and not remembering.”  He related to medical personnel that he was “afraid of hurting himself or someone else.”

He was promoted to pay grade E-4 in June 1988 and indicated in a physical examination that he had been hospitalized from 25 August 1988 through 8 October 1988 for a “personality disorder” and received treatment for depression.

On 2 November 1988 a staff psychiatrist concluded the applicant suffered from an “antisocial personality disorder” and that it was unlikely that efforts to rehabilitate or develop him into a satisfactory member of the military would be successful.
The applicant’s unit commander initiated action to administratively separate the applicant under the provisions of paragraph 5-13, Army Regulation 635-200 for personality disorder.  The applicant consulted with counsel, indicated he understood the basis for his separation and that he would submit statements on his own behalf.  He did not submit any statements and on 10 November 1988 the separation action was approved.

On 21 November 1988 the applicant was released from active duty with an honorable characterization of service.  At the time of his separation he had completed 1 year, 6 months, and 8 days of continuous active federal service.

In 1996 the Army Discharge Review Board unanimously denied his request to change the reason for his administrative separation.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, states that soldiers may be separated for personality disorder that interferes with assignment to or performance of duty.  The diagnosis of personality disorder must have been established condition is a deeply-ingrained maladaptive pattern of behavior of long duration.


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

2.  The evidence confirms the applicant was hospitalized as a result of an incident in Panama which ultimately resulted in a determinations by a trained psychiatrist that he suffered from an antisocial personality disorder which impacted on his ability to be a satisfactory member of the military.  The applicant has provided no evidence which indicates the diagnosis was incorrect.
3.  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.

4.  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

                       DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director