RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            15 March 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20040004301


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Raymond J. Wagner             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Jonathan K. Rost              |     |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 that his administrative separation for
personality disorder be changed to a medical separation.

2.  The applicant states that the diagnosis of personality disorder was
based on one isolated incident after 10 months of service and just prior to
his expected deployment to Kuwait.

3.  The applicant states that, after being diagnosed with frostbite in
December 2002, he was told if it happened again he would not be deployable
and would face potential discharge due to the uncertainties of nerve
damage.  He was placed on a "cold weather injury" profile.  In January
2003, he was again diagnosed with frostbite.  No word was said regarding a
potential discharge; however, there was a noticeable change in how his
superiors treated him.  He became an outcast.

4.  The applicant further states that, in February 2003, they were to have
a 4-day weekend over the holiday.  They had been notified the week before
that they were under deployment status and no travel would be allowed.  His
wife had purchased a non-refundable ticket for him to see her in Phoenix.
He asked if an exception could be made.  They said, "possibly," and that he
would be told on the following Monday.  The decision was negative and he
erupted out of many levels of frustration.  The Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) hospital psychologist said he experienced a post-traumatic
stress reaction that stemmed from his prior 5-year service in the Bosnian
Army, not from a personality disorder.

5.  The applicant states that after his "eruption" he was put on suicide
watch and sent to the psychiatric ward.  After his release, he continued in-
house assignments and was assigned deployment equipment as if he were to be
deployed to Kuwait.  It took his superiors two weeks to inform him that he
was to undergo evaluation for separation for personality disorder.  After
three weeks of counseling, he was told he was being separated for having a
personality disorder.  When he disagreed with the diagnosis, he was told he
could fight it out with an attorney or just sign it and go home and see his
wife.  He signed his discharge papers believing that the atmosphere at the
base no longer supported him.  He decided he would contest the diagnosis
upon his return home.

6.  The applicant states that the VA has awarded him a 40 percent
disability rating for his cold weather injuries.  His reaction to not being
able to see his wife in February 2003 was unfortunate.  He believes he
would have continued to make a valuable contribution in the fight against
terrorism.

7.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or
Discharge from Active Duty); his separation packet; a VA Rating Decision
dated 30 March 2004; and a VA decision on claim dated 1 April 2004.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s military records are not available to the Board.  This
case is being considered using reconstructed records, which primarily
consist of the documents provided by the applicant.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 May 2002.  He completed
basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military
occupational specialty 77F (Petroleum Supply Specialist).  On or about 8
October 2002, he was assigned to Fort Drum, NY.

3.  On 26 February 2003, a mental status evaluation diagnosed the applicant
with an adjustment disorder with anxious mood and a personality disorder
not otherwise specified.  The applicant was found to be capable of
appreciating the nature of his conduct and to understand and participate in
administrative proceedings.  The applicant's ability to function in a
military environment was determined to be significantly impaired.  The DA
Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation) was signed by Captain
(promotable) Va___, Chief, Division Psychology Services and by Captain
(promotable) VI___, Chief, Division Mental Health.

4. On 5 March 2003, the applicant completed a separation physical
examination and was found qualified for separation.  The DD Form 2808
(Report of Medical Examination) indicated the applicant had a temporary
profile against cold weather exposure.  The DD Form 2808-1 (Report of
Medical History) noted he had temporary profiles during the cold weather
season.

5.  On an unknown date, the applicant’s commander initiated action to
separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
paragraph 5-13, for personality disorder.  The commander stated that the
reason for his proposed action was:  on or about 12 February 2003 the
applicant stated that he would cut his wrist if he did not get to see his
wife.  Additionally, he was examined and found to have an adjustment
disorder with anxious mood and a personality disorder not otherwise
specified.

6.  On 13 March 2003, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the
notification to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-
200, paragraph 5-13.

7.  On an unknown date, the applicant indicated he was advised by
consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him
for personality disorder and its effects, of the rights available to him,
and the effect of any action taken by him in waiving his rights.  He
elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

8.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the
applicant receive a characterization of honorable.

9.  On 14 April 2003, the applicant was discharged, with an honorable
characterization of service, in pay grade E-2, under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, personality disorder.  He had completed
 11 months and 13 days of creditable active service with no lost time.

10.  On 1 March 2004, the VA awarded the applicant service-connected
disability for frostbite of the left foot (10 percent); frostbite of the
right foot (10 percent); peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity
(10 percent); peripheral neuropathy of the right lower extremity (10
percent); fracture of the right fifth metacarpal (0 percent), and varicose
vein of the left lower extremity (0 percent) for a combined rating of 40
percent.  Service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder was denied.


11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5, paragraph 5-13 sets the
policy and prescribes procedures for separating members with a personality
disorder (not amounting to a disability) that interferes with assignment to
or performance of duty.  This condition is a deeply ingrained maladaptive
pattern of behavior of long duration that interferes with the Soldier's
ability to perform duty.  The diagnosis of personality disorder must have
been established by a psychiatrist or doctoral-level clinical psychologist
with necessary and appropriate professional credentials who is privileged
to conduct mental health evaluations for the Department of Defense
components.  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.  Separation processing may not be initiated under
this paragraph until the Soldier has been counseled formally concerning
deficiencies and has been afforded ample opportunity to overcome those
deficiencies as reflected in appropriate counseling or personnel records.

12.  Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation of physical fitness of
Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of
physical disability.  The unfitness is of such a degree that a Soldier is
unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating in such a
way as to reasonably fulfill the purpose of his employment on active duty.
In pertinent part, it states that although the ability of a Soldier to
reasonably perform his or her duties in all geographic locations under all
conceivable circumstances is a key to maintaining an effective and fit
force, this criterion will not serve as the sole basis for a finding of
unfitness.

13.  Title 38, U. S. Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the VA to award
compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by
active military service.  The VA, however, is not required by law to
determine medical unfitness for further military service.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The rating action by the VA does not necessarily demonstrate an error
or injustice on the part of the Army.  The VA, operating under its own
policies and regulations, assigns disability ratings as it sees fit.  The
VA is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further
military service in awarding a disability rating, only that a medical
condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the
individual concerned.  Consequently, due to the two concepts involved
(i.e., the more stringent standard by which a Soldier is determined not to
be medically fit for duty versus the standard by which a civilian would be
determined to be socially or industrially impaired), an individual’s
medical condition may be rated as disabling by the VA and yet he was found
to be fit by the Army.

2.  The Board acknowledges that the applicant had cold weather injuries
while assigned to Fort Drum, NY.  However, it does not appear that he was
ever given a permanent profile for those injuries.  It does not appear that
he was ever prevented from performing his duties because of those injuries.
 Indeed, the applicant stated that he believed he would have continued to
make a valuable contribution in the fight against terrorism, indicating
that he did not believe he was medically unfit to perform his duties.

3.  The Board notes that the VA determined that the applicant did not
suffer from a personality disorder.  However, it appears the applicant was
evaluated by competent military medical authorities (a doctoral-level
clinical psychologist with necessary and appropriate professional
credentials who was privileged to conduct mental health evaluations).
Unfortunately, absent evidence that shows the applicant was evaluated by an
unqualified individual the Board must presume that Captains Va___ and Vi___
made a valid medical determination that he suffered from a personality
disorder.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__rjw___  __jtm___  __jkr___  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.




            __Raymond J. Wagner___
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040004301                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050315                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |108.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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