RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         19 OCTOBER 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004102974


      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. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James Hise                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Bernard Ingold                |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Yolanda Maldonado             |     |Member               |

      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 effect, that his separation document be
corrected to show that he was discharged for “medical” reasons rather than
as a result of a personality disorder.  In the alternative, he asks that
the reason for his discharge be changed to reflect that he was discharged
because of an “adjustment disorder.”

2.  The applicant states that he was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder
with depressed mood (Axis I) and with a personality disorder NOS (not
otherwise specified) (Axis II).

3.  He states that according to the DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders) the “Axis II diagnosis indicates that there
were patterns of behaviors that met a ‘general criteria’ for a personality
disorder, but were not significant enough to warrant an Axis I diagnosis….”
 He maintains that the criteria which was relevant to his case emerged in
response to situational stressors that he was trying to adapt to and that
these stressors affected him emotionally and physical, and in turn affected
his conduct and ability to function as a Soldier.

4.  He states that he was “desperate to relieve” himself from what had
become “pure hell” and made threats concerning his own-wellbeing and
others.  He states that he felt if he could just get away, he would become
his “old self” again.  He states that he has become his old self even
though he is receiving disability compensation from the Department of
Veterans Affairs for his adjustment disorder.

5.  The applicant states, however, that the “personality disorder”
reflected on his separation document is affecting his ability to secure
gainful employment and believes that if his separation document reflected
“adjustment disorder” or better yet “medical discharge” he would be able to
respond with a sense of dignity when questioned by potential employers.

6.  The applicant provides a copy of his separation document, a copy of his
Department of Veterans Affairs rating document, copies of mental health
evaluations, and a partial copy of his separation action.





CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant entered
active duty on 5 January 2000.  He was 20 years old, a high school
graduate, and had a GT (general technical) score of 114 at the time of his
enlistment.  His home of record was recorded as Umatilla, Oregon, and it
appears, other than when undergoing training, that he served his entire
enlistment at Fort Lewis, Washington.  He was trained as a cook.

2.  The copy of the applicant’s separation action, provided by him,
indicates that he was counseled on at least five different occasions
between October 2000 and February 2001, he failed to pass his common task
test, and was punished one time under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice for disobeying a lawful order.  He was promoted to pay
grade E-3 in November 2000.

3.  In February, March, and April 2001 he was seen by mental health
officials at Madigan Army Medical Center.  His medical treatment documents
note he was hospitalized from 13 February 2001 until 16 February 2001 with
a chief complaint of “I can’t take this anymore.”  His initial mental
health evaluation in February 2001 noted that the applicant hated the Army
and his job, his leadership was uncaring and did not respond to his
requests, and that he was thinking about injuring himself to get out of the
Army.

4.  His initial diagnosis was:  Axis I:   Adjustment Disorder with
Depressed Mood
                          Axis II:  Personality Disorder NOS
                          Axis III: None
                          Axis IV: occupational problems, financial
problems and relationship problems
                          Axix V: 58

5.  The term “Axis” refers to the use of the multiaxial system of
evaluation outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM).  Axis I refers to clinical disorders and conditions that
need clinical attention.  Axis II refers to personality disorders and
mental retardation.  Axis III refers to general medical conditions.  Axis
IV refers psychosocial and environmental problems. Axis V refers to the
global (overall) assessment of functioning.

6.  Upon his release from the hospital he was issued a temporary profile
based on “adjustment disorder, depressed, personality disorder.”

7.  A mental status report, completed on 28 March 2001 noted that the
applicant reported that things were going pretty well, and that he was
concentrating on getting out of the Army and pursuing a career in teaching.
 He stated that he had already been accepted in a teaching program in
Oregon.  His diagnosis at that point was:  Axis I:   Occupational Problem
             Axis II:  Personality Disorder NOS
             Axis III: None

8.  A mental status report, completed on 11 April 2001, just one day after
the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
paragraph 5-13 for a personality order, was approved; his diagnosis
mirrored the original February 2001 diagnosis.

9.  The applicant’s entire administrative separation package was not
available to the Board.  However, the portion of the package, which was
provided by the applicant as part of his application to this Board, did
indicate that the applicant had acknowledged receipt of the proposed
separation and enclosures.

10.  On 24 April 2001 the applicant was honorably discharged.  The reason
for his separation is recorded as “personality disorder.”

11.  In July 2002 the applicant was granted a 10 percent disability rating
by the Department of Veterans Affairs for “adjustment reaction with
depressed mood” in addition to disability ratings for chronic lumbar strain
and tinnitus.  His combined rating was determined to be 30 percent.  The
document noted that personality disorders are not considered diseases for
which service connection can be granted.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13 provides for the
administrative separation of Soldiers for personality disorder that
interferes with assignment or with performance of duty.  It states that the
condition is a deeply ingrained maladaptive pattern of behavior of long
duration that interferes with the Soldier’s ability to perform duty.
Exceptions include combat exhaustion and other acute situational
maladjustments.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-71 provides for the
administrative separation of Soldiers on the basis of other physical or
mental conditions not amounting to disability and excluding conditions
appropriate for separation processing under paragraph 5-13 that potentially
interfere with assignment to or performance of duty, including disorders
manifesting disturbances of perception, thinking, emotional control or
behavior sufficiently severe that the Soldier’s ability to effectively
perform military duties is significantly impaired.

14.  Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 3-3b(1), as amended, provides that
for an individual to be found unfit by reason of physical disability, he
must be unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating.

15.  Army Regulation 40-501, which outlines medical conditions which may
render and individual unfit, or which may preclude enlistment, note that
both personality and adjustment disorders will be dealt with through
administrative and not medical channels.  It notes that situational
maladjustments (adjustment disorders) due to acute or chronic situational
stress do not render an individual unfit because of physical disability,
but may be the basis for administrative separation if recurrent and causing
interference with military duty.

16.  The DSM-IV notes that the essential feature of an adjustment disorder
is the development of clinically significant emotional or behavioral
symptoms in response to an identifiable psychosocial stressor or stressors.
 The symptoms must develop within 3 months after the onset of the stressor
and generally resolve within 6 months of the termination of the stressor.
However, the symptoms may persist for a prolonged period if they occur in
response to a chronic stressor (e.g., a chronic disabling general medical
condition).  It notes that personality traits are enduring patterns of
perceiving, relating to, and thinking about the environment and oneself
that are exhibited in a wide range of social and personal contexts.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that because he believes that his
personality disorder was not significant enough it did not warrant an Axis
I diagnosis, is without foundation.  The various Axis classifications are
not assigned based on which is most significant; rather they are placed at
the level appropriate to the various rating categories.  Personality
disorders, regardless of the severity, are always placed at Axis II.  Even
if there were no Axis I diagnosis, the personality disorder would be
reflected at Axis II.

2.  Although the applicant’s entire separation package was not available to
the Board, the documents which are available indicate that the applicant
was involved in his administrative separation action.  Clearly members of
his chain of command, and likely members of his medical consultation staff,
determined that the appropriate disposition, based on the applicant’s
conditions, was via the paragraph authorizing administrative separation for
personality disorder (5-13) rather than via paragraph 5-17 (other
designated physical or mental conditions).  It is possible that the
adjustment disorder was seen as transient in nature and that it impacted
less on the applicant’s inability to perform his duties than did his
personality disorder, which was more deeply ingrained.

3.  The fact that the applicant is now receiving disability compensation
from the Department of Veterans Affairs for his adjustment disorder is not
evidence that the basis for his administrative separation was in error.  It
is noted that he could not receive compensation for his personality
disorder.

4.  The applicant had no medical condition which warranted referral for
disability processing and as such there is no basis to change his
separation document to show that he was medically discharged.

5.  Additionally, he has not provided any compelling evidence that his
separation by reason of personality disorder was in error or unjust.  The
fact that he is now uncomfortable explaining the basis for his separation,
or that potential employers react negatively to the reason for his
separation, does not serve as a basis to change the reason for his
separation.

6.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, 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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JH___  ___BI___  ___YM __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.


                                  ______James Hise________
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004102974                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20041019                                |
|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.       |108.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]