RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            20 December 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20050005807


      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             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James C. Hise                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Ronald E. Blakely             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette R. McCants           |     |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 the narrative reason for his
separation be changed from Personality Disorder to Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, there was no basis for Personality
Disorder being used as the reason for her separation.

3.  The applicant provides a Self-Authored Statement, FAX Message,
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision, and Defense Finance
and Accounting Service (DFAS) Account Statement in support of her
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number
AR2004103079, on 14 October 2004.

2.  The applicant’s record shows she enlisted in the Regular Army for
training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 98G (Voice Interceptor),
which entitled her to an enlistment bonus of $11,000.00.

3.  A separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances
surrounding the applicant’s separation processing is no longer on file in
the record.  However, this packet was available to the Board when it
considered the applicant’s case in October 2004.  The Record of Proceedings
prepared at that time confirms the applicant underwent psychiatric
evaluations on 5 and
24 November 2004.  She was diagnosed as having a major depressive disorder,
moderate, recurrent; and a borderline personality disorder.  The examining
physician concluded she would not respond to command rehabilitation efforts
or any treatment methods available in the military mental health facility.
The applicant was found mentally responsible, and it was determined that
she had the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings,
and she was psychiatrically cleared for any action deemed appropriate by
the command.  There were no medical findings that would have supported the
applicant’s separation processing through medical channels.

4.  The original Record of Proceedings also confirms the applicant
consulted with counsel and was advised of the basis for the separation
action, and its effects, and of the rights available to her.  Subsequent to
this counseling, the applicant elected not to submit a statement in her own
behalf.

5.  On 6 January 2004, the applicant was honorably separated under the
provisions of paragraph 5-13, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of
personality disorder.  Based on the authority and reason for her
separation, she was assigned a SPD code of JFX.  At the time, she held the
rank of specialist four and had completed 2 years, 5 months, and 12 days of
active military service.  The applicant authenticated the separation
document (DD Form 214) containing this information with her signature in
Item 21 (Signature of Member Being Separated).

6.  The applicant provides a DFAS Account Statement, dated 4 March 2005.
This document confirms a debt to the Government of $1,119.69 was
established on the applicant for recoupment of the unearned portion of her
enlistment bonus.

7.  The applicant also provides a VA Rating Decision, dated 1 December
2004.  This document shows the VA granted the applicant service connection
for the following conditions at the disability rate indicated:  PTSD, 70
percent (%); Mixed Headache Disorder with Migraine and Tension Headaches,
30%; Temporomandibular Joint  Dysfunction Associated with PTSD, 20%; Left
Knee Patellofemoral Syndrome, 10%; Right Knee Patellofemoral Syndrome, 10%;
Cervical Strain, 10%; Thoracic Spine Spondylosis, 0%.  The rating decision
indicates the applicant’s PTSD condition resulted from sexual assault and
harassment she experienced in Iraq.

8.  Title 38, United States 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, which is
the Army standard for determining if disability separation processing
through the Army’s Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) is
warranted.  The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations,
awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and
that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial
adaptability of the individual concerned.  Consequently, due to the two
concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not
considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of
processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to
qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that
agency.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative
Separations)
sets policies, standards, and procedures for the orderly administrative
separation of enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons.  Paragraph 5-13
contains the policy for the separation of Soldiers by reason of personality
disorder.  It states that a Soldier may be separated for personality
disorder (not amounting to disability) that interferes with assignment or
with performance of duty.

10.  The separations regulation further states that the diagnosis of
personality disorder must be established by a psychiatrist or doctoral-
level clinical psychologist with necessary and appropriate professional
credentials who is privileged to conduct mental health evaluations.  It is
described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV) of Mental
Disorders, 4th edition.  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 for personality disorder
is not appropriate when disability separation processing through the Army’s
PDES is warranted.

11.  In a similar case, the Chief, Incentives and Budget Branch, Enlisted
Accessions Division, Officer of The Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, has advised
that bonuses are routinely recouped when members are separated through
voluntary actions, or for misconduct.  However, the governing regulation is
not clear regarding recoupment for Soldiers who are not separated
voluntarily or for misconduct.  The regulation further states that a
Soldier may not forfeit any portion of the bonus when the Soldier is no
longer classified in the bonus specialty when an injury, illness or other
impairment occurs and is not caused by misconduct.  This official further
states that the governing regulation is currently being staffed with a
revision that would not authorize bonus recoupment in personality disorder
cases.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record, as established in the original Record of
Proceedings issued by the Board in October 2004, confirms the applicant’s
separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable
regulation.  All requirements of law and regulation were met, and her
rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.
2.  The record further shows that the applicant consulted with legal
counsel and was advised of the basis for the separation action, its
effects, and of the rights available to her during her separation
processing.  Subsequent to this counseling, the applicant elected not to
submit a statement in her own behalf and did not contest the action.

3.  The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant upon her separation contains
the authority and reason for her separation, and she authenticated this
document with her signature on the date of her separation.  In effect, her
signature was her verification that the information contained on the
separation document, to include the reason for her separation, was correct
at the time the document was prepared and issued.  There is no indication
that the applicant objected to the authority and reason for her separation
at the time.

4.  In view of these facts, there is no evidentiary basis to conclude the
reason for the applicant’s separation was improper, or that would support
payment of her entire enlistment bonus.

5.  However, based on the G-1 guidance provided in similar cases, it would
serve the interest of equity and justice to correct the applicant’s record
to show that based on the reason for her separation, the $1,119.69 debt
established for recoupment of the unearned portion of her bonus was
erroneous.

6.  The applicant’s separation was not voluntary and was not based on
misconduct.  Accordingly, the applicant should not be required to forfeit
that portion of the bonus already received, and she should be refunded any
funds already recouped.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

___JCH _  __REB __  __JRM__  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant amendment of the ABCMR’s decision in AR2004103079, on 14 October
2004.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army
records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing the debt in the
amount of $1,119.69 for recoupment of the unearned portion of the
enlistment bonus was erroneously established; and by refunding to her any
funds already collected pertaining to this erroneous debt.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is
insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result,
the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to
a change in the authority and reason for her discharge, and to payment of
the entire enlistment bonus.




            ____James C. Hise_______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050005807                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |AR2004103079 / 2004/10/14               |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/12/20                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |2004/01/06                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 5-13                         |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Personality Disorder                    |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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