2.  In effect, the applicant requests that her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be changed to show that she was not discharged for a personality disorder under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13; and that her separation code of JFX and her reentry code of RE-3 be changed accordingly.  
She states that her condition was misdiagnosed as borderline personality disorder and that regulations were not properly followed when processing her for administrative separation. 

3.  The applicant first entered the Army on 9 August 1988 and was discharged at Fort Lee, Virginia, some four months later on 2 December 1988, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 11-3.  She received an entry level status discharge and her service was uncharacterized. Her reentry code as shown on her separation document 
is RE-3. 

4.  A 26 February 1994 memorandum from an Army Reserve nurse counselor indicates that the applicant stated that her discharge was a result of an unstable home situation - her marriage with an alcoholic husband became unbearable and she felt it would be best for her and her child to leave.

5.  On 19 May 1994 the applicant received a waiver of her RE-3 reentry code and reenlisted for 4 years on 18 July 1994 under the civilian acquired skill program.  In October 1994 she was assigned as a practical nurse to a medical activity at Fort McClellan, Alabama. 

6.  A 7 December 1994 report of mental status evaluation indicates that the applicant was diagnosed as having PTSD and a borderline personality disorder (primary diagnosis).  The examining psychiatrist stated that the applicant met the medical standards for retention in the Army, and that there was no mental disease or defect that warranted disposition through medical channels.  She was mentally responsible, able to appreciate any wrongfulness in her behavior and to conform her behavior to the requirements of the law.  She had the mental capacity to participate in administrative proceedings.  The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate.  The psychiatrist recommended that she be administratively separated because of a personality disorder.
7.  The applicant was counseled on 12 December 1994 regarding her personal problems and how those problems distracted from her job performance.  The counselor indicated that the applicant had requested separation on two occasions, because of financial hardship, negative impact on her marriage, lack of support systems, and dysfunctional family experiences.  That official indicated that the applicant had received mental health counseling, unit sponsorship, and counseling from members in her chain of command, and that she still was unable to focus on the mission.  The applicant stated that she agreed that her problems took her and other members of the staff away from the mission.

8.  The applicant’s commanding officer initiated action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, for a personality disorder.  The applicant consulted with counsel and stated that she understood the basis for the contemplated action, its effects, and the rights available to her.  She stated that she understood the nature and consequences of the general discharge that she might receive.  The applicant submitted a statement dated 1 December 1994, to the effect that she had been seeing a medical officer concerning her personal problems, which were causing her considerable anxiety and stress, and taking time from her work. The medical officer felt that the Army is not the place for her and that she should be discharged.  She stated that she was on medication, that at no time has her nursing skills been questioned, and that she would be continuing her treatment until her discharge.

9.  On 22 December 1994 the applicant submitted a rebuttal to her commander’s recommendation that she be discharged, stating that she was a licensed practical nurse, had worked hard, and had displayed exemplary nursing skills, and did not deserve the stigma of being discharged because of a personality disorder.  She had resolved many of her marital problems and was continuing to seek counseling.  She stated that she had never received counseling saying that she might 
be separated as having a personality disorder.  She desired to remain in the Army and requested that the separation action be disapproved, or as an alternative, she be barred from reenlistment and separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5 (voluntary separation of soldiers denied reenlistment). 

10.  A 27 December 1994 report of medical examination indicates that the applicant was medically qualified for separation with a physical profile of 1 1 1 1 1 1.

11.  On 27 January 1995 the applicant withdrew her rebuttal to the separation action, stating that she wanted to be discharged under honorable conditions, that she was still undergoing extreme emotional distress, and was often without financial support.  Her anxiety attacks had increased, and she was not used to and could not handled the demanding, inflexible expectations of the Army.

12.  An entrance standards board (EPSBD) proceedings of 
27 February 1995 indicates that the applicant stated that she was a mother of four who continued to suffer from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), to include difficulties in concentration, sleeping, anger, depression, recurrent recollections of prior abuse.  Her family history included domestic violence, sexual molestation, and alcoholism.  She had an extremely abusive first marriage that included physical and emotional violence.  The report went on to say that the applicant had made a tearful presentation, she was agitated, and her flow of thought content was indecisive; she had suicidal thoughts, ideas of hopelessness, and guilt. She was diagnosed as having PTSD and a borderline personality disorder.  The examining psychiatrist stated that she met the retention standards of Army Regulation 
40-501, Chapter 3, but did not meet the entrance standards of that directive.  He recommended that the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11, for a condition noted within the first 180
days of active duty that existed prior to service and that was not service aggravated.  The findings of the proceedings were approved by the medical authority, and on 1 March 1995 the applicant concurred and requested to be discharged without delay.  On 1 March 1995 the separation authority (Commander of the Medical Activity (MEDDAC) at Fort McClellan), directed that the applicant be discharged and that she receive an entry level separation (uncharacterized).

13.  This same Commander of the MEDDAC who had approved her entry level separation on 1 March had previously recommended on 9 February that the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-13, for a personality disorder and that the character of her service be honorable.  That separation authority, the Commander of the Special Troop Command at Fort McClellan, approved that recommendation on 7 March 1995.

14.  The applicant was discharged on 24 March 1995 because of a personality disorder under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13.  Her separation code as shown on her DD Form 214 is JFX, and her reentry code is 
RE-3.  She had 8 months and 7 days of service and 3 months and 24 days of prior service.

15.  A psychological evaluation, dated 6 July 1995 from a health center in Roseburg, Oregon, submitted by the applicant contesting the diagnosis of her condition as a personality disorder, indicates that the applicant had certain emotional disturbances that are not atypical for most adults, but with a rather guarded prognosis for any significant psychotherapeutic benefit.  The examining psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant as having PTSD, with insufficient evidence to warrant a personality disorder diagnosis.

16.  On 17 March 1997 the applicant was queried on whether or not to proceed in the processing of her application, considering that a change in the reason for her discharge could result in a change in the characterization of her discharge, i.e., from honorable to uncharacterized.  In replying, the applicant requested that her application to change her separation code, narrative, and reentry code be processed to the Board for a decision.

17.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority
for separation of enlisted personnel from active duty. 
Paragraph 5-11 provides for the early separation of soldiers who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for enlistment, or who 
became medically disqualified under these standards prior to entry on active duty.  Medical proceedings, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate military medical authority within 6 months of the soldier’s initial entry on active duty, which would have permanently or temporarily disqualified her for entry into the military service had it been detected at that time, and which does not disqualify her for retention in the military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3.  The character of service for a soldier separated under this paragraph will normally be honorable, or an uncharacterized description of service if in entry level status. 

18.  Paragraph 5-13 of the aforementioned regulation establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for personality disorder (not amounting to a disability under Army Regulation 635-40), a deeply-ingrained maladaptive pattern of behavior which interferes with the individual's ability to perform.  Prior counseling with a view to correcting deficiencies is mandatory.  The service of a soldier separated because of a personality disorder will be honorable unless an entry level separation is required.

19.  Chapter 11 of that regulation provides for the separation of personnel in an entry level status for unsatisfactory performance or conduct as evidenced by inability, lack of reasonable effort or a failure to adapt to the military environment.  These provisions apply only to individuals whose separation processing is started within 180 days of entry into active duty.  An uncharacterized separation is mandatory under this chapter.  Separation will be accomplished within 3 duty days following approval by the separation authority. 

20.  Paragraph 3-9 of Army Regulation 635-200 concerns uncharacterized separations and states, in part, that a separation will be described as an entry level separation with service uncharacterized if processing is initiated while a soldier is in entry level status.  The Secretary of the Army, on a case-by-case basis, can determine that the characterization of service is Honorable if clearly warranted by the presence of unusual circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of duty.  This characterization is authorized when the soldier is separated by reason of selected changes in service obligation, convenience of the Government and Secretarial plenary authority.

21.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 prescribes the separation (SPD) codes to be used, and the authorities, and reasons for their usage and control.  The SPD code for a soldier separated for personality disorder is JFX; for failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards, JFW; and for entry level performance and conduct, JGA.

22.  Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  Army Regulation 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the US Army Reserve.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes, including RA RE codes.

23.  The RE code for persons separated for personality disorder and for failure to meet procurement medical standards is RE-3; separation for entry level performance and conduct is also RE-3.  RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable. 

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was approved for separation on two occasions, once on 1 March 1995 as a result of the findings and recommendations of an entrance standards board, for failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards, with an entry level separation and uncharacterized discharge directed; and the second time on 7 March 1995, as a result of a separate, concurrent, administrative action, because of a personality disorder with an honorable discharge directed. The Board notes that the official who approved the applicant’s entry level separation on 1 March is the same official who, on 9 February, recommended that the applicant be separated because of a personality disorder.  The applicant concurred in both actions.

2.  Separation processing, either for failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards or because of a personality disorder, occurred prior to 180 days after the applicant’s enlistment; either separation required an entry level separation and an uncharacterized description of service.

3.  The evidence of record does not indicate any good reason why both administrative separation actions occurred almost simultaneously, and while the Board is reluctant to question the decision of a commander in the field, it notes that the approval of the applicant’s separation for failure to meet procurement medical standards antedated the approval to separate her because of a personality disorder.  The applicant should have been separated for failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards directly after the separation authority approved that action.  Consequently, the narrative reason for the applicant’s discharge on her DD Form 214 should read, “Failure to Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standards”, vice “Personality Disorder”, the separation authority should be, “AR 635-200, para 5-11”, instead of “AR 635-200, para 5-13”, and her separation code should show “JFW”, instead of “JFX”.

4.  The applicant’s reentry code, RE-3, is correct and should not be changed. 

5.  The applicant’s medical condition was identified and separation processing initiated within 6 months of the applicant’s enlistment, therefore, an entry level separation with an uncharacterized description of service is normally warranted.  The applicant was made aware that the description of her service might change if the Board acted upon her application; nonetheless, she requested that her application be presented to the Board for a decision.  However, it is apparent that she would not want the Board to change her description of service from honorable to uncharacterized, and the Board is reluctant to penalize an individual for applying to the Board for correction of an error.  The applicant’s character of service should remain as honorable and should be so indicated on her DD Form 214.   
6.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

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

     a.  that the individual concerned was discharged because of failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-300, paragraph 5-11, and

     b.  that the individual concerned be issued a new 
DD Form 214 to reflect the separation authority as 
AR 635-200, para 5-11, the narrative reason for separation as Failure to Meet Procurement Medical Fitness Standards, the separation code as JFW, the reentry code as RE-3, and the character of service as Honorable.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




		                           
		        CHAIRPERSON