APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Reinstatement on active duty with no loss of rank and restoration of all back pay and allowances.

APPLICANT STATES:  He “was summarily discharged following a career of almost 14 years of excellent, blemish-free service.”  He states that he was not afforded the opportunity for a transfer following his initial psychiatrist evaluation and subsequently was diagnosed with a personality disorder which resulted in his separation from active duty.  He notes there “was no finding and no evidence of a deeply ingrained maladaptive pattern of behavior of long duration...as required” by the separation regulation.  The applicant maintains the brigade commander did not have the authority to order discharge in view of the “history and diagnosis and lack of opportunity to overcome deficiencies.”

The applicant stated in other correspondence that he was trained as a combat engineer but since February 1986 performed duties as a supply sergeant.  He notes that “situational stress” and the denial of his request for reclassification “caused [him] to seek mental and emotional help” and was then diagnosed “with an adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features....”

In support of his request he submits several statements from individuals who either worked with, or supervised him, during his military service.  Each of the statements indicates the applicant was an excellent worker and exhibited no behavior which would cause them to believe he had a personality disorder.

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

He served an initial period of active duty between 1980 and 1983 as a unit supply specialist.  In March 1984 he reenlisted and was trained as a combat engineer although he continued to hold a supply MOS as his secondary specialty. 

His records and performance evaluation reports indicate he performed duties as a combat engineer until he was assigned to Germany in March 1989 where he was assigned duties as a supply sergeant with an engineer battalion.  Upon his return to the United States in April 1992 he continued to perform duties in his secondary specialty.

The applicant’s performance evaluations as a combat engineer and as a supply sergeant were all exceptional.  He was awarded two Army Commendation Medals and several Army Achievement Medals during his military service.

On 20 October 1993 the applicant’s unit was notified by the Medical Activity at Fort Hood, Texas that the applicant had been evaluated at the Community Mental Health Service and was recommended for enrollment in the group therapy program. The evaluation, which lead to the recommendation, is not in available records nor provided by the applicant.

A psychiatric evaluation, conducted on 27 October 1993 by the division psychiatrist, noted the applicant reported a 2 month history of increasing stress, depression, insomnia, anorexia, decreased concentration, decreased memory, and decreased self-esteem.  The evaluating psychiatrist noted these symptoms developed in response to feelings of being trapped and unable to progress in the Army because he was unable to be promoted working in his secondary specialty and was not being allowed to work in his primary specialty.  She indicated the applicant reported he was beginning to feel out of control of his emotions and feared that he would hurt himself or someone else.  The psychiatrist stated that the symptoms constituted an adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features and recommended transfer to another unit if possible as it was “highly unlikely that any treatment will result in improvement...as long as he remains in his current battalion.”

On 18 November 1993, after two additional sessions, the evaluating psychiatrist noted that “ongoing evaluation and treatment of [the applicant] has revealed the presence of a personality disorder.”  She states that “it has become clear that as a result of this personality disorder, [the applicant] is not capable of adapting to the stressors currently facing him [and] these stressors are intrinsic to military life, and thus rehabilitative efforts will not be successful.”  The evaluation indicated the applicant presented “a significant risk for harm to self and others if he is not administratively separated from the military expeditiously.”

The applicant was notified by his unit commander, via a general counseling form, that he was in receipt of the 
18 November 1993 psychiatric evaluation report and that separation proceedings would be initiated if the applicant did not avail himself to requesting a rehabilitative transfer or other rehabilitative measures.  The applicant concurred with the counseling form and did not indicate he would be taking any measures on his own behalf.

On 13 December 1993 the applicant was notified by his unit commander that he was initiating action to administratively separate the applicant from active duty for a personality disorder.  The notification cited the 18 November 1993 evaluation and that the applicant “presents a significant risk for harm to himself or to others around him.”

After consulting with legal counsel, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation action, waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board and indicated he would submit statements in his own behalf.  Such statements, however, are not part of the separation package in available records nor were they provided by the application.

The applicant submitted a statement on 15 December 1993 objecting to the separation noting he “was never given an opportunity for rehab and the counseling did not set forth any rehabilitative directives.”  He stated that he “was just notified of separation and no rehab of any extent was given” which violated the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13e.  He indicated that he “even requested a rehabilitative transfer, but it was denied.”

On 16 December 1993 the applicant’s battalion commander acknowledged the applicant’s 15 December statement and indicated he was recommending denial of any request for rehabilitative transfer citing the psychiatric evaluation report which noted rehabilitative efforts will not be successful.”

On 17 December 1993 the separation authority approved the recommendation for administrative separation, waived the rehabilitative requirements and indicated the applicant would be issued an honorable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13.

The applicant was discharged on 4 January 1994 in pay grade E-6 and received $13,760.82 in separation pay.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13 provides for the administrative separation of soldiers for personality disorders which interferes with and assignment or the performance of duties.  Generally this condition must be a deeply-ingrained maladaptive pattern of behavior of long duration, except in cases of combat exhaustion and other acute situational maladjustments.  While separation processing should not normally be initiated under this paragraph until the soldier has been counseled formally concerning deficiencies and has been afforded ample opportunity to overcome those deficiencies, the requirement for a rehabilitative transfer may be waived by the separation authority at any time on or before the date the separation authority approves or disapproves the separation when it is determined that further duty of the soldier would create serious disciplinary problems or a hazard to the military mission or to the soldier, be inappropriate, or would not be in the best interests of the Army as it would not produce a quality soldier.

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 allegations regarding violation of rights is unsupported by the evidence of record.  A physician trained in psychiatry determined the applicant’s personality disorder was of such magnitude that he posed a significant risk to himself and others, that rehabilitative measure were not practical, and that he should be separated from the military expeditiously.

2.  In the case of acute situational maladjustments the requirement that the disorder have been of long duration is not necessary and the separation authority was well within his purview to waive rehabilitative requirements under the circumstances.

3.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.

4.  While several soldiers noted in their statements of support that the applicant never exhibited any actions which would cause them to conclude he suffered from a personality disorder none of those individuals would have been privileged to the counseling sessions which took place between the applicant and his evaluating psychiatrist.

5.  The applicant was afforded the opportunity to have his case heard by an administrative separation board and to submit statements in his own behalf which might have resulted in his retention on active duty.  There is no evidence he availed himself to either of these opportunities and only now maintains that his “rights” were violated.  The applicant has submitted no evidence that the medical opinion of the evaluating psychiatrist was in error at the time she rendered her evaluation.

6.  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.

7.  The actions by the Army in this case were proper, and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.

8.  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