ABCMR Memorandum of                                                             AR2002075283
Consideration (cont)

MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            23 January 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002075283

	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
| Ms. Nancy L. Amos | | Analyst

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

| Ms. Kathleen A. Newman | | Chairperson
| Ms. Gail J. Wire | | Member
| Mr. Patrick H. McGarthy, Jr. | | 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 she be reinstated on active duty.  She also requests, in effect, that the Article 15, dated 2 September 1998, and the related vacation of suspended punishment, dated 8 September 1998, be expunged from her records and all rights and privileges restored to her and that she be promoted to grade E-4.

APPLICANT STATES:  That she was physically able to perform all of her military duties.  She was only mentally ill at that time.  Also, her doctors said that the Article 15 could be removed from her records due to the fact that the misconduct was due to her medical condition and not willful disobedience.  If she had not been demoted, she would have been promoted to E-4 on 9 October 1998.

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

That she enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 October 1996.  She completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 98G (Voice Interceptor).

An Optional Form 275 (Psychiatry Consultation), dated 19 August 1998, indicates the applicant was evaluated for "spells."  A records review revealed 4-5 episodes of limited responsiveness to the environment associated with times of being either angry or upset.  Those occurred since approximately 31 July 1998 when she became worried about the safety of her family.  She reported a long-term history (childhood) of having difficulty with anger and that in the past she dealt with it by removing herself from situations either through sports, studies, or going to her room.  She was diagnosed with dissociative disorder not otherwise specified versus factitious disorder with psychological symptoms; deferred but obsessive compulsive and schizoid traits; and migraines, eczema, and recent hyperglycemia.

On 2 September 1998, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for disobeying a lawful order to open her eyes and move in an expedient manner (committed on 18 August 1998), failing to go to physical training formation (committed on 27 August 1998), and failing to wear the prescribed duty uniform (committed on 27 August 1998).  Her punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-2, suspended, a forfeiture of $242.00 pay, and 14 days restriction.

On 8 September 1998, the suspended reduction was vacated due to the applicant's failing to go to physical training formation (committed on 8 September 1998).

An Optional Form 275A (Psychiatry Outpatient Progress Note), dated                11 September 1998, reported that the applicant was doing well and escorts confirmed that there had been no recent dangerous behavior.  She was diagnosed with dissociative disorder not otherwise specified.

A Narrative Summary, dated 29 September 1998, noted that a mental status examination found the applicant's mood angry and irritable.  Her speech was pressured and loud, with psychomotor agitation.  She had some paranoid delusions and delusions of grandeur.  She was oriented to person, place, time, and situation.  Her insight and judgment were poor.  It noted that she had been admitted for observation and on day two of her hospitalization she became manic.  Her agitation necessitated a "take down" in order to administer Haldol and Ativar intramuscularly.  She was diagnosed with bipolar I disorder, manic episode as indicated by the following:  a distinct period of abnormally and persistently irritable mood for which hospitalization was necessary, inflated self-esteem and grandiosity, decreased use for sleep, more talkative than usual, flight of ideas, and distractability.  

On 8 October 1998, an Air Force Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) found the applicant to be unfit for duty due to bipolar I disorder and recommended she be referred to the Army reviewing authority for disposition.

An undated, incomplete memorandum, Subject:  Request for Continuation on Active Duty, indicates the applicant may have requested continuation on active duty if she was determined to be unfit because of physical disability because she qualified in a shortage MOS.

On 8 February 1999, a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) found the applicant to be physically unfit due to bipolar disorder and recommended she be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) with a 30 percent disability rating.  On 18 February 1999, the applicant concurred in the findings and recommendation and waived a formal hearing of her case.  

On 22 May 1999, the applicant was discharged, in the grade and rank of Private First Class, E-3, and placed on the TDRL effective 23 May 1999.  She had completed 2 years, 7 months, and 13 days of creditable active service.  

On 5 September 2000, a TDRL re-evaluation determined that the applicant's impairment had not sufficiently stabilized to permit final adjudication at that time.  It was recommended she remain on the TDRL.

On 30 April 2002, a TDRL re-evaluation found that the applicant's psychiatric illness stabilized during that TDRL period.  She received psychiatric treatment and medications.  She was compliant with her treatment plans and had not required hospitalization.  It was determined she was physically unfit due to bipolar I disorder requiring psychiatric treatment which effectively managed her symptoms; she was currently employed and planned to begin college in the near future.  It was recommended she be separated with severance pay with a         10 percent disability rating if otherwise qualified.  On 3 May 2002, the applicant concurred with the findings and recommendation and waived a formal hearing of her case.

Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability.  The regulation defines “physically unfit” as unfitness due to physical disability.  The unfitness is of such a degree that a soldier is unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating in such a way as to reasonably fulfill the purposes of his employment on active duty.  

Army Regulation 635-40 states that to be considered for continuance on active duty several criteria must:  (a) be found unfit by a PEB because of a disability that was not the result of intentional misconduct nor willful neglect nor incurred during a period of unauthorized absence; (b) be capable of maintaining oneself in a normal military environment without adversely affecting one's health and the health of others and without undue loss of time from duty for medical treatment; (c) be physically capable of performing useful duty in an MOS for which he or she is currently qualified; and (d) be eligible through either having 15 years but less than 20 years of total service, being qualified in a critical skill or shortage MOS, or having a disability the result of combat.

Army Regulation 40-501 governs medical fitness standards for enlistment, retention, and separation.  Paragraph 3-32 states that affective disorders (mood disorders) are causes for referral to an MEB when symptoms are persistent or recurrent sufficient to require extended or recurrent hospitalization, necessity for limitations of duty, or duty in a protected environment or resulting in interference with effective military performance.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, (DSM-IV), fourth edition, states the essential feature of bipolar I disorder (classified as a mood disorder) is a clinical course that is characterized by the occurrence of one or more manic episodes.  A manic episode is defined by a distinct period during which there is an abnormally and persistently elevated, expansive, or irritable mood.  Adverse consequences of a manic episode (e.g., involuntary hospitalization or difficulties with the law) often result from poor judgment and hyperactivity.  Mood may shift rapidly to anger or depression.  Depressive symptoms may last moments, hours, or, more rarely, days. Not uncommonly, the depressive symptoms and manic symptoms occur simultaneously.  

Army Regulation 600-8-19 governs the promotion of enlisted personnel.  In pertinent part it states that a soldier (private first class - master sergeant) undergoing medical evaluation proceedings to determine ability to perform in recommended MOS is in a nonpromotable status.  Once a PEB determines that a soldier is no longer qualified for continued active service, he/she will be removed from the promotion list.

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 evidence of record shows the applicant was placed on the TDRL due to bipolar I disorder and subsequently determined to be physically unfit due to bipolar I disorder requiring psychiatric treatment that effectively managed her symptoms.  It was recommended she be separated with severance pay.  She concurred in the findings and recommendation.  

2.  The Board concludes that the applicant was properly determined to be "physically" unfit for duty.  The governing regulation, Army Regulation 40-501, includes mental disorders as "physical" conditions.  

3.  It appears the applicant requested continuation on active duty at one point; however, the fact she required psychiatric treatment to manage her symptoms disqualified her from continuation.  She failed to meet one of the required criteria, i.e., capable of maintaining oneself in a normal military environment without undue loss of time from duty for medical treatment.  The Board concludes that her required psychiatric treatment would have constituted an undue loss of time from duty.

4.  At no time was the applicant found to be mentally incompetent.  While the DSM-IV notes that one of the adverse consequences of a manic episode may be difficulties with the law (or, military authority), those consequences result from poor judgment rather than from not knowing right from wrong.  Therefore, it appears that the Article 15 dated 2 September 1998 and the related vacation of suspended punishment action dated 8 September 1998 were properly administered.

5.  Because it appears that the nonjudicial punishment was properly administered, it would not be appropriate to promote the applicant to grade E-4.  In addition, it appears her disability processing started in September 1998.  Once it started, she was in a nonpromotable status.  Since she was subsequently found to be physically unfit for retention, she could not have been promoted anyway.

6.  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

__KAN__  __GJW  _  __PHM __  DENY APPLICATION 

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

INDEX

CASE ID | AR2002075283
SUFFIX |
RECON |
DATE BOARDED | 2003/01/23
TYPE OF DISCHARGE |
DATE OF DISCHARGE |
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY |
DISCHARGE REASON |
BOARD DECISION | DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY |
ISSUES         1. | 108.00
2. | 126.04
3. |
4. |
5. |
6. |