RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           24 February 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003091227


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Rosa M. Chandler              |     |Analyst              |


  The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.      |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Margaret V. Thompson          |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Lawrence Foster               |     |Member               |

      The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in essence, that both the separation authority
and the narrative reason for separation on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be changed to show that he was
separated as a result of an administrative discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in essence, that he was separated under the
provisions of chapter 5-13, Army Regulation 635-200, for medical reasons
and that it is not an administrative separation.  According to his
psychiatric evaluation, he does not believe that he meets the requirements
for separation under this regulation.

3.  The applicant provides in support of his request:  a United States Army
Reserve (USAR) printout of his assignment history; a psychiatric
evaluation, dated 3 June 1991, showing that he was command-referred for
evaluation, and he was found to have a dependent personality disorder and
marital problems; and a letter written to the Board, dated 10 April 2003.
The applicant indicates in his letter that while he was deployed for the
Persian Gulf War, his ex-wife took his children to Connecticut and left
them with her mother until he returned from deployment.  He had been
informed that his next assignment was an unaccompanied tour to Korea and he
had no one to care for his children.  At the time of separation, he was
advised the he was receiving an administrative separation and that he would
have no problems securing a position with the Army National Guard or the
USAR.  He has served in the USAR since 1999.  Last year he served 8 months
in Kosovo for Operation Joint Guardian and at the time this letter was
written he was serving in Operation Enduring Freedom.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an error or injustice which
occurred on 2 July 1991.  The application submitted in this case is dated
10 April 2003.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  Prior to the period of enlistment under review, the applicant served
honorably in the Regular Army (RA) from 29 August 1980-19 August 1983.
During this period of service, he served in Germany from 28 December 1980
until he was separated.  He was issued a DD Form 214 at the time of
separation.  He had a break in service.
4.  The applicant reenlisted and served honorably in the RA from 21 March
1985-29 December 1987 until he was separated for immediate reenlistment.

5.  On 30 December 1987, while assigned to Korea, the applicant reenlisted
in the RA for 6 years, a selective reenlistment bonus, current station
stabilization (6 months), his previous military occupational specialty
(MOS) 96H (Aerial Intelligence Specialist) and in pay grade E-5.  The
applicant served in Korea for a total of 25 months from 6 May 1987-14 June
1989.  On 25 August 1989, the applicant was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas.

6.  On 26 September 1990, the applicant deployed with his unit from Fort
Hood to Saudi Arabia.  Between 21 June 1990 and 30 December 1990, the
applicant was counseled for being dysfunctional.  He had marital and
financial problems and his duty performance was suffering.  The applicant's
chain of command helped him get his pay straightened out and he received
counseling.

7.  On 19 December 1990, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation.
It was determined the applicant had a history of adjustment disorders and a
depressed affect.  He appeared to display some elements of major depression
and he was diagnosed to suffer from an adjustment disorder, specifically
"mixed emotional features (depressed anxiety), dependent personality
disorder."  It was stated that his condition ". . . is a persuasive pattern
of behavior, which began before adulthood and is present in a variety of
contents, to include:  1) Feeling helpless when alone.  2) Preoccupied with
fears of being abandoned.  3) Being easily hurt by criticism or
disapproval.  4) Allowing others to make important decisions.  5) Agreeing
with people even when he believes they are wrong."  The examining official
believed this condition was a predisposition to his current depressed
state.  It was believed unlikely to be resolved in his current (Army)
environment.  Although it was not the basis for medical separation,
administrative separation was warranted.

8.  On 14 January 1991, the applicant was counseled and advised his
performance of his duties over the past 2 months had been below standards
expected of a sergeant.  His self-pity and lack of motivation had become a
morale problem for his platoon and he was removed from flight status due to
his poor duty performance.  His actions became intolerable; he evaded duty
by exaggerating illness or injuries; and he was threatened with Uniform
Code of Military Justice action.  The commander advised the applicant he
was recommending separation under the provisions of chapter 5-13, Army
Regulation 635-200 and the applicant agreed that he wanted the separation.
Shortly thereafter, the applicant contended he wanted to continue to
Soldier and his performance improved.  Prior to the applicant's return to
Fort Hood, his relationship with his wife deteriorated further, and again
the applicant became dysfunctional.  On 4 April 1991, the applicant
returned to Fort Hood.
9.  On 3 June 1991, the applicant was command-referred to undergo a
psychiatric evaluation.  The applicant was made aware of the reason for the
examination and he agreed to the procedure.  The evaluation consisted of a
clinical interview and psychometrics.  He was diagnosed with dependent
personality disorder and marital problems.  It was noted the applicant's
performance, both in Saudi Arabia and at Fort Hood, were reflective of
ongoing severe martial issues coupled with excessive dependency which
rendered him occupationally ineffective.  It was also noted the applicant
met medical retention standards prescribed in chapter 3, Army Regulation 40-
501, and there was no current psychiatric disease or defect which warranted
disposition through medical channels.  The applicant was determined not to
be mentally ill and a medical board was not necessary for disposition.  The
recommendation was that the command expeditiously pursue an administrative
separation to preclude further decrement in performance.

10.  On 21 June 1991, the applicant’s unit commander notified him that he
was initiating action to separate him with an honorable discharge (HD)
prior to the expiration of his term of service under the provisions of
chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of personality disorder.  The
commander cited the basis for his recommendation was the applicant had been
diagnosed with a character and behavior disorder and the extent of his
disorder was so severe that his ability to function effectively in a
military environment was significantly impaired.  On the same date, the
applicant consulted with legal counsel and he was advised of the basis of
the contemplated separation action and informed of his rights.  He was also
advised that he was entitled to a hearing by a board of officers, he waived
those rights.   He did not make a statement in his own behalf.

11.  On 25 June 1991, the intermediate commander recommended that the
applicant be released from active duty with an HD and transferred to the
Individual Ready Reserve (IRR).

12.  On 26 June 1991, competent authority approved the recommendation and
directed the issuance of an HD under the provisions of chapter 5, AR 635-
200, by reason of personality disorder and ordered that the applicant not
be transferred to the IRR.

13.  On 2 July 1991, the applicant was separated under the provisions of
chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-200, with an HD as a result of a personality
disorder.  He had completed a total of 6 years and 3, months, and 12 days
of active military service on the enlistment under review and he had
completed 2 years, 11 months and 21 days of prior active military service.
He had no recorded lost time.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-13 provides that a Soldier
may be separated for a personality disorder not amounting to disability
under Army Regulation 635-40, that interferes with assignment to, or
performance of duty.  The regulation requires that the condition be a
deeply ingrained, maladaptive pattern of behavior of long duration that
interferes with the Soldier's ability to perform duty.  The regulation also
directs that a commander will not take action prescribed in this chapter in
lieu of disciplinary action, and requires that the diagnosis conclude that
the disorder is so severe that the Soldier’s ability to function in the
military environment is significantly impaired, and states that a
separation for a personality disorder is not appropriate when separation is
warranted under other provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, 604-10, or
635-40.  Army policy requires the award of a fully honorable discharge in
such cases unless the Soldier is in an entry level status or he or she has
a general court-martial or more than one special court-martial.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.   The applicant did not receive a medical separation.  He was determined
to have no psychiatric disease or defect which warranted disposition
through medical channels.  He was separated due to a personality disorder
that affected his performance of duty.  He received an administrative
separation which was accomplished in compliance with the appropriate
regulations, with no indication of procedural errors which would have
jeopardized his rights.

2.  In view of the circumstances in this case, both the separation
authority and the narrative reason for separation were, and still are
appropriate.  The applicant has submitted no evidence that supports a
change in either.

3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 2 July 1991; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 1 July 1994.  However, the applicant did not file within the 3-
year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation
or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
failure to file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__rvo___  __mvt___  __lf____  DENY APPLICATION




BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate
the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board
determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis
for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.



            Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.
            ______________________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2003091227                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040224                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD)                                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19910702                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200, Chap 5                       |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |A42.00                                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.4200                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |