Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
Ms. Deyon D. Battle | Analyst |
Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
Mr. Thomas Lanyi | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his narrative reason and authority for separation be changed and that he be awarded severance pay.
APPLICANT STATES: That the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) clearly states in its review for disability that his medical records from 18 September 1997 through 20 June 2000 are silent of any treatment or diagnosis of a personality disorder. He states that the Army discharged him based on a false diagnosis of a personality disorder so that there would be no medical hearing to determine whether a condition for major depressive disorder was caused by military service. He states that the Army discharged him by reason of physical disability so that he would not be entitled to severance pay, which he would have been entitled to had he been properly discharged. He states that he has a major depressive disorder which was caused by military service and that he has never been diagnosed as having a personality disorder. He concludes by stating that he is now seeking severance pay for his illegal discharge. In support of his application he submits copies of pages from his DVA decisional document.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 18 September 1997, he enlisted in the Army for 4 years in the pay grade of
E-1. He successfully completed his training as an armor crewmember. He was promoted to the pay grade of E-2 on 18 March 1998 and to the pay grade of E-3 on 18 October 1998.
On 6 March 2000, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation at the Behavioral Medicine Clinic, United States Army Medical Department Activity, Fort Knox, Kentucky. He was diagnosed as having a major depressive disorder (single episode), a personality disorder (not otherwise specified), and reported knee, back and GI problem. At the time of the evaluation the psychologist noted that the applicant displayed no evidence of mental defect, emotional illness, or psychiatric disorder of sufficient severity to warrant disposition through military medical channels. The psychologist further noted that the applicant was mentally responsible for his behavior, could distinguish right from wrong, and possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate intelligently in any proceedings. The psychologist recommended that he be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-13, based on a personality disorder.
On 28 March 2000, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-13 based on a personality disorder. The commander cited the Behavioral Medicine Clinic evaluation as a basis for the recommendation for discharge. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification. On 31 March 2000, after consulting with counsel, he waived his right to have his case considered by an administrative board and he opted not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 1 June 2000. Accordingly, on 20 June 2000, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-13, based on a personality disorder. He had completed 2 years, 9 months and 3 days of total active service.
Along with his application to this Board the applicant submitted page 2 and page 5 of an evaluation, which appears to have been conducted on 18 September 2000 by the VA Medical Center, Bay Pines, Florida. On page 5 of the evaluation the applicant highlighted portions that indicates that a review of his service medical records from 18 September 1997 through 20 June 2000 is silent to any treatment or diagnosis of a personality disorder. The VA diagnosed the applicant as having a major depressive disorder; however, the VA denied service connection for personality disorder indicating that the condition neither occurred in nor was caused by military service.
On 15 May 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for a change in the reason and authority for his discharge.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 5, paragraph 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for personality disorder, and provides, in pertinent part, that a soldier may be separated for personality disorder (not amounting to disability) that interferes with assignment to or performance of duty. The diagnosis of personality disorder must have been established by a physician trained in psychiatry and psychiatric diagnosis. Separation because of personality disorder is authorized only if the diagnosis concludes that the disorder is so severe that the soldier’s ability to function effectively in the military environment is significantly impaired.
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 type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
3. The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions. The Board has also reviewed the pages of the VA evaluation that was submitted in support of the application. However, the evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on 6 December 1999 and he was diagnosed as having a major depressive disorder, a personality disorder, and reported knee, back and GI problems.
4. The psychologist recommended that he be discharged in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-13, based on a personality disorder and the applicant was discharged accordingly.
5. Inasmuch as the applicant did not have any medically unfitting disability, which required physical disability processing, there is no basis for physical disability separation with severance pay.
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 this requirement.
7. 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
___fe ___ ___le ___ __tl _____ DENY APPLICATION
CASE ID | AR2002076019 |
SUFFIX | |
RECON | YYYYMMDD |
DATE BOARDED | 2002/11/21 |
TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD |
DATE OF DISCHARGE | 2000/06/20 |
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 |
DISCHARGE REASON | 756 |
BOARD DECISION | DENY |
REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
ISSUES 1. 191 | 110.0200 |
2. 291 | 128.0800 |
3. | |
4. | |
5. | |
6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070718C070402
On 22 September 2000 the applicant’s squad leader counseled him concerning his performance, stating that he had not improved since being diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and that it would be in his and the Army’s best interest that he be separated because of his personality disorder. On 23 October 2000 the applicant’s commanding officer notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him from the Army for a personality disorder under the provisions of Army Regulation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085559C070212
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that contrary to the Board’s original Memorandum of Consideration, he was not given any mental status evaluations in the year 2000, “let alone March 6 th 2000” as the Board noted. As noted in the Board’s previous action, the applicant’s commander initiated actions to administratively separate the applicant from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13 (personality disorder) on 28 March 2000. The Board notes that the December...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010309
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. Evidence of record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 5 October 2000. There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, which shows that his administrative discharge from the Army was incorrect or that disability retirement or separation would have been more appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022614
On 12 July 2010, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request to change the narrative reason for separation of his discharge from personality disorder to physical disability retirement. The evidence of record confirms the applicant underwent two mental health evaluations that diagnosed him as having a personality disorder not amounting to a disability that interfered with the performance of his duties. The narrative reason for separation was assigned based on his being separated...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016097
The G-1 stated: * The decision to separate her was made based on her mental status evaluation and the Army psychiatrist's strong recommendation * Her medical documents from the 3 March 2010 behavioral health incident were also reviewed * The psychologist determined that an expeditious administrative separation was still the appropriate recommendation and that this is not a line of duty condition * She would also be released from the AZARNG 18. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17, may...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015345
During his time on active duty service, he deployed to an imminent danger pay area three times, where he reportedly participated in numerous combat patrols. In a 17 July 2009 memorandum, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness) directed that as a matter of policy, all three Boards for Correction of Military Records will apply VASRD Section 4.129 to PTSD unfitting conditions for applicants discharged after 11 September 2001 and, in such cases where a grant of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110018523
As a result, his diagnoses met the criteria for an administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 5-17, by reason of other designated physical or mental conditions. On 29 July 2010, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17, by reason of other physical and/or mental...
AF | PDBR | CY2013 | PD2013 02168
The informal PEB combined the two mental health conditions forwarded by the MEB and adjudicated “posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) stating “symptoms of major depressive disorder are interrelated and included in this rating” as unfitting, rated 10% with likely application of DODI 1332.39 [ rescinded ] and/or AR 635-40 in effect at the time.The remaining four conditions were determined to be not unfitting.The CI made no appeals, and was medically separated. The VA assigned a disability...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010996
Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. It is acknowledged that the DVA has diagnosed the applicant with a major depressive disorder, rather than personality disorder, and has granted him a 50 percent disability rating due to this condition. In the applicant's case, a military psychiatrist diagnosed him with a personality disorder.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120019264
The notes indicated she was previously diagnosed with Personality Disorder during care at the VA. c. There is insufficient information available from her time in service to determine the support for a diagnosis of Borderline Personality Disorder. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) governs the evaluation of physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of a physical disability. The Army must find...