MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:



         BOARD DATE: 09 JULY 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002068510

         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
Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Ms. Joann Langston		Chairperson
Mr. Thomas B. Redfern III		Member
Mr. Roger W. Able		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, the applicant requests his DD Form 214 be corrected to delete the authority and reason for his discharge, that his separation code likewise be corrected, and that his reentry code of “3” be changed to a reentry code of “1.”

APPLICANT STATES: That the military psychiatrist recommended that he be discharged because of a personality disorder, passive-aggressive type, without conducting any formal testing to support her recommendation. According to the evaluation completed by a psychiatrist, herself a former Army medical officer, after his discharge, there is no current personality disorder known as passive-aggressive according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), the current manual used by mental health professionals both today and at the time of his discharge. Passive-aggressive disorder has been only in past editions of the manual.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Army for five years on 7 August 1996 and was trained as a military policeman. In December 1996 he was assigned to Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico, and in February 1998 to Fort Hood, Texas. He was promoted to pay grade E-4 in October 1998.

On 5 April 2000, the applicant, then a member of the 64^th Military Police Company at Fort Hood, was counseled by his team leader on his responsibility for taking his medication.

On 14 May 2000 the applicant was counseled because he lost his medication.

On 6 June 2000 the applicant’s squad leader counseled him on why he [the squad leader] did not recommend him for promotion. His squad leader stated that he was doing things that an NCO could not do, for instance wearing two different types of shoes, having his rank pinned under his lapel with the brass backing on the outside, losing his prescription, and failing at corrective training by forgetting to take his pills. He also stated that the applicant’s military bearing needed improvement.

On 7 June 2000 the applicant was counseled because he did not take his medication when instructed to do so. He was counseled the following day by his platoon sergeant for the same reason.

A 21 June 2000 memorandum shows that the applicant was referred by his commander to the Operation Joint Forge Medical Treatment Facility for a mental health evaluation. The Chief of the Mental Health Services, in evaluating the applicant, stated that the applicant had been followed by mental health since 1 May 2000, and that prior to deploying [to Hungary] he was referred for an evaluation at Fort Hood, Texas, for a learning disorder, which was ruled out. She stated that the applicant had difficulty with interpersonal relationship skills, particularly with persons with authority over him. She stated that he demonstrates a pervasive pattern of negativistic attitudes and passive resistance to demands for adequate performance, and that he lacks insight into his patterns of behavior and how those behaviors elicit emotions and actions in other people. She stated that those negative reactions from others results in a high degree of anxiety for the applicant, and in response to increased stress, he exhibits a tic in the form of lip rolling. She stated that the applicant resists fulfilling routine occupational tasks, complains about being misunderstood and appreciated, is argumentative, scorns authority, is resentful of others he sees as more fortunate, voices persistent complaints of personal misfortune, and alternates between feeling defiance and contrition. She stated that he experiences difficulty sustaining attention in tasks, organizing tasks, staying to tasks to completion, often loses things, makes careless mistakes, and is often forgetful in daily activities. She stated that with long term therapy and medication the applicant may be able to develop the coping skills and insight required to perform to the standards for mission accomplishment.

She diagnosed the applicant’s condition as Axis I Tic Disorder, not otherwise specified, EPTS (existed prior to service); Axis II Personality disorder not otherwise specified with obsessive compulsive traits, meets research criteria for passive aggressive personality disorder. She stated that the applicant was unsuitable for continued service because the diagnosis of a personality disorder was maladaptive to continued service. She recommended that the applicant be processed for an administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13. She stated that although he did not have a severe mental disorder, he manifests a longstanding personality disorder precluding him from continued military service. She stated that she had discussed the findings and recommendations with the applicant who acknowledged and understood them.

The applicant was counseled on 22 June 2000 by his platoon leader regarding the initiation of separation proceedings against him. That official stated that he was relieving him of all military police duties and would not be issued any weapons or ammunition. He was informed that he would continue to take his prescription medication in accordance with his doctor’s orders.

On 2 August 2000 the applicant’s commanding officer requested a mental health evaluation for the applicant, stating that the applicant did not get along with others or with his supervisors and could not follow instructions. He stated that the applicant had been transferred within his present unit on two previous occasions in an attempt to rehabilitate him. He stated that the applicant had been diagnosed with a passive aggressive personality and that he was not fit for duty. A 2 August 2000 report of mental status evaluation shows that the applicant was mentally responsible and that he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings.

On 3 August 2000 the applicant’s commanding officer notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him for a personality disorder under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13. He stated that the applicant’s inability to perform his duties as a military policeman and as a soldier due to a maladaptive pattern of behavior was the reason for his action.

The applicant consulted with counsel and stated that he had been advised of the basis for the contemplated action, its effects, the rights available to him, and the effects of any action taken by him in waiving his rights. He declined to submit statements in his behalf.

He did, however, provide a two page statement saying that he had been referred to a mental health [clinic] while deployed to Hungary and Croatia, and the fact of his treatment was not taken into consideration by several NCOs. He alleged that he was mistreated by NCOs on various occasions, describing the incidents during which he was mistreated.

The applicant’s commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be discharged from the Army.

In a 17 August 2000 memorandum to the applicant’s commanding officer, a staff psychiatrist of the Army Medical Department Activity at Fort Hood stated that he conducted a psychiatric evaluation of the application on 15 August 2000. That evaluation consisted of a clinical interview and mental status examination and indicated that he had a diagnosis of passive-aggressive personality disorder. He stated that the applicant displays a history of chronic situational maladjustment with emotional and behavioral instability. He suffered from a personality disorder that was incompatible with continued military service. He stated that the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any action deemed appropriate. He recommended expeditious processing of his separation to reduce the risk of further instability and possible harm to himself or others. He stated that it was his opinion that the applicant would not respond to command efforts at rehabilitation, that he was not world wide combat ready, and was non-deployable.

On 31 August 2000, the separation authority approved the recommendation to discharge the applicant for a personality disorder. The applicant was honorably discharged on 29 September 2000 at Fort Hood, Texas. His DD Form 214 shows that he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13 because of a personality disorder. His separation code on that form is “JFX” and his reentry code is “3.”

In a 6 December 2000 report of a psychological evaluation, the evaluating psychologist indicated that the applicant stated that while deployed to Hungary he was referred to a psychiatrist for “bad job performance,” and that the psychiatrist reportedly diagnosed him with a passive aggressive personality disorder, and that when he returned from deployment his command initiated proceedings to have him discharged due to the psychiatrist’s assessment of a personality disorder. The report indicated that the applicant stated that his attempts to challenge the decision were futile. The examining psychologist stated that the applicant had planned to seek employment in law enforcement and wanted to see whether or not he did have a personality disorder, and if not, he wanted that information taken off his DD Form 214. She stated that the applicant had denied academic or behavioral problems, that he had completed 4 years of service, and had achieved the rank of E-4. She stated that he admitted to getting negative counseling statements at times, but denied ever receiving nonjudicial punishment or being demoted in rank. She stated that other than being assessed by a psychiatrist in Hungary and the current evaluation, the applicant denied ever receiving evaluation or treatment for mental health reasons. The applicant described himself as being in excellent physical health and denied taking any medications. Overall review of background history did not reveal any indication of personality disorder problems or any other clinical diagnosis. The examining physician listed the assessment tools that she utilized.

She described the results of the mental status examination, stating that the applicant’s eye contact was good and that he spoke in a clear, polite tone of voice. She stated that his thought process was linear, logical, and goal-oriented, and his content was appropriate to the subject matter. She stated that there were no indications of aberrant thinking or psychotic features, that his reported mood was primarily stable but a bit anxious over the ramifications of the allegations of a personality disorder. The affect was congruent and appropriate to the subject matter. She stated that overall he presented himself as a stable young man who was concerned about his future. She stated that the test results were valid and interpretatively useful, that the applicant approached the testing in an open and nondefensive manner and completed all test items. She stated that the resulting profiles on both tests were within normal limits, with no indications of any personality disorder or any other clinical disorder. She stated that the results of the evaluation, to include clinical interview, mental status examination, and formal testing, did not give any indication that the applicant had a personality disorder or any other clinical disorder. She stated that from the applicant’s report, the psychiatrist who initially gave him the diagnosis of passive aggressive personality disorder spent less that an hour’s time with him and did not conduct any formal testing to support the given diagnosis. She stated that a diagnosis of personality disorder, by definition, is “a longstanding, maladaptive pattern of functions that is pervasive, inflexible, and unlikely to change.” She stated that a review of the applicant’s background history did not reflect this definition, and that diagnoses of personality disorders or other psychological/psychiatric disorders are made by referring to the current DSM-IV; and that while a diagnosis of passive aggressive personality disorder has been in past editions of the manual, it is not in the most current revision and is therefore not generally accepted as an accurate or appropriate diagnosis. She stated that it would appear not only appropriate but ethically necessary to remove the information referring to a personality disorder from the applicant’s DD Form 214.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-13 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 of long duration which interferes with the individual's ability to perform. The diagnosis of personality disorder must have been established by a physician trained in psychiatry and psychiatric diagnosis. It is described in the DSM-IV of mental disorders. Prior counseling with a view to correcting deficiencies is mandatory. Separation processing may not be initiated until the soldier has been counseled formally concerning deficiencies and had been afforded ample opportunity to overcome those deficiencies as reflected in appropriate counseling or personnel records. When it has been determined that separation is appropriate, the unit commander will take the actions specified in the notification procedure (chapter 2, section II). The service of a soldier separated for a personality disorder will be characterized as honorable.

The notification procedure requires the commander to notify the soldier in writing that his separation has been recommended. The commander will cite specific allegations on which the proposed action is based, will include the specific provisions of the regulation authorizing separation, and the soldier will be advised whether the proposed separation could result in discharge or release from active duty. The soldier will be advised of the type of discharge and character of service recommended by the initiating commander. The soldier will be advised that he has the right to consult with consulting counsel, to submit statements in his own behalf, and to obtain copies of documents that will be sent to the separation authority. The soldier may waive his rights in writing. The soldier’s commander or other designated individual will personally serve the soldier with the letter of notification. The soldier is required to sign an acknowledgement of receipt. Upon receipt of the recommended action the separation authority will determine if there is sufficient evidence to verify the allegations. The separation authority may disapprove the recommendation, direct retention, suspend separation, or direct separation for a specific reason.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) offers specified diagnostic criteria for each mental disorder as guidelines for making diagnoses. The purpose of DSM-IV is to provide clear descriptions of diagnostic categories in order to enable clinicians and investigators to diagnose, communicate about, study, and treat people with various mental disorders.
A multiaxial system involves an assessment on several axes, each of which refers to a different domain of information, that may help the clinician plan treatment and predict outcome. There are five axes included in the DSM-IV multiaxial classification:

Personality disorder is an Axis II disorder. A personality disorder is an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time, and leads to distress or impairment. There are various types of personality disorders, to include antisocial personality disorder (a pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others), borderline personality disorder (a pattern of instability in interpersonal relationships, self-image, and affects, and marked impulsivity), obsessive-compulsive personality disorder (a pattern of preoccupation with orderliness, perfectionism, and control), and personality disorder not otherwise specified. This last category provided for two situations (1) the individual’s personality pattern meets the general criteria for a personality disorder and traits of several different personality disorders are present, but the criteria for any specific personality disorder are not met; or (2) the individual’s personality pattern meets the general criteria for a personality disorder, but the individual is considered to have a personality disorder that is not included in the classification (e.g., passive-aggressive personality disorder).

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. Notwithstanding the applicant’s statement to the psychologist as indicated in the 6 December 2000 report of a psychological evaluation, the applicant had been evaluated at least on four occasions by mental health personnel. An Army Nurse, the Chief of Mental Health Services, evaluated the applicant as indicated in the 21 June 2000 memorandum and diagnosed him as having a personality disorder, indicating that the applicant had been followed by mental health in Hungary since 1 May 2000, and prior to that he had been referred for an evaluation at Fort Hood. He was again evaluated on 3 August 2000, and received an evaluation by a psychiatrist on 15 August 2000, who also determined that the applicant had a personality disorder.

2. The Board recognizes that at times there will be an honest difference of opinion among medical personnel as to a diagnosis, and realizes that the opinion of the Chief, Mental Health Services, in the report dated 21 June 2000 and the opinion of the psychiatrist as indicated in the report on 17 August 2000, differ from that of the psychologist in the evaluation dated 6 December 2000. However, and notwithstanding the opinion stated in the 6 December 2000 report, the applicant could have a personality disorder that is not included in the classification (e.g., passive-aggressive personality disorder) as indicated in DSM-IV. The Board notes that the applicant was diagnosed by the Chief, Mental Health Services in June 2000 with a personality disorder not otherwise specified with obsessive compulsive traits, and that he met the research criteria for passive-aggressive personality disorder. In August of that year, the staff psychiatrist at Fort Hood also opined that the applicant had a passive-aggressive personality disorder.

3. In spite of the 6 December 2000 psychological evaluation report provided by the applicant, he has not submitted a convincing argument in support of his request. The preponderance of evidence indicates that the applicant did indeed have a personality disorder, as shown by his counseling statements, the information provided by his commanding officer, and the mental evaluations in June and August of 2000. Consequently, his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, for a personality disorder was proper. Therefore, there is no reason to correct the applicant’s DD Form 214 as he has requested.

4. 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 that requirement.

5. 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

__JL____ __TBR __ __RWA__ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002068510
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	20020709
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	110.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.