RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         18 July 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050017443


      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. Lester Echols                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick H. McGann             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Ernestine R. Fields           |     |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 her
separation be changed.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she is requesting the change
because the narrative reason for separation is preventing her from
obtaining certain types of employment that are related to her degree, such
as law enforcement.  She claims she has seen a psychiatrist that states
that she does not have a personality disorder and therefore, she feels a
change to the narrative reason for her separation is appropriate, or she
should be provided compensation for her disability back as far as her
discharge in 1990.  She further states that the entire truth is that the
location where she was stationed was going to close, and various units were
asked if they had individuals who would like an early-out.  She chose the
early-out and was sent back to the United States for processing.  She
claims she did not have a personality disorder and as a matter of fact,
once she was separated, she discovered she was 3 and 1/2 months pregnant,
which was discovered during her separation physical examination.

3.  The applicant provides a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Mental
Health Evaluation, dated 6 June 2002, in support of her application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 22 October 1990.  The application submitted in this case
was received on 8 December 2005.

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 limitations 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.  The applicant's record shows that she enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 5 July 1988.  She was trained in, awarded, and
served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 95B (Military Police), and
the highest rank she attained while serving on active duty was private
first class (PFC).

4.  On 14 August 1990, the unit commander notified the applicant of his
intent to initiate action to separate her based on a personality disorder
on the recommendation of the psychiatrist.  He further informed the
applicant that he was recommending she receive an honorable discharge.

5.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis
for the contemplated separation and its effects, the rights available to
her and the effect of a waiver of those rights.  Subsequent to receiving
this legal counsel, the applicant elected to submit a statement in her own
behalf.  In this statement, she indicated that she no longer wished to
remain in the military. She stated that she could not handle the stressful
situations and therefore, she wished to be removed from the military.

6.  On 4 September 1990, the applicant underwent a separation physical
examination.  The Report of Medical Examination (SF 88) on file shows she
suffered from a personality disorder.  It further shows the examining
physician assigned her a Physical Profile of 111111 and medically cleared
her for retention/separation.  There was no indication that the applicant
suffered from a disabling mental or physical condition that would have
supported her separation processing through medical channels.

7.  On 15 October 1990, the separation authority approved the applicant's
separation.  On 22 October 1990, the applicant was discharged accordingly.
The separation document (DD Form 214) she was issued at the time confirms
she was separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-13, Army Regulation
635-200, by reason of personality disorder.  At the time, she had completed
a total of 2 years, 3 months, and 18 days of active military service.  The
applicant authenticated this document with her signature.

8.  The applicant provides VA Mental Health Services Progress Notes that
outline her treatment for depression since 2002. They show she has suffered
from episodes of depression, for which she is being treated by the VA.  In
December 2003, the applicant underwent psychological testing that indicated
she suffered from moderate depression, and the examining psychiatrist
recommended she remain on her treatment plan.

9.  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.

10.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's claim that the narrative reason for her separation
should be changed, or she should be provided disability compensation back
to the date of her discharge, and the supporting documents she submitted
were carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to
support granting the requested relief.

2.  The evidence of record contains an SF 88 documenting the applicant's
separation physical examination.  This document confirms that while she was
suffering from a personality disorder, she did not suffer from a mentally
or physically disabling condition that would have supported her separation
processing for disability through medical channels.  It further confirms
she was medically cleared for retention/separation by proper medical
authority, and her 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.

3.  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, she submitted a statement in
which she indicated she wished to be separated from the military.  Further,
the DD Form 214 she was issued 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
narrative 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.  As a
result, there is no evidentiary basis to conclude the reason for her
separation was improper,

4.  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.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 22 October 1990, the date of her
separation from active duty.  Therefore, the time for her to file a request
for correction of any error or injustice expired on 21 October 1993.  She
failed to 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 timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___LE  __  ___PHM_  __ERF __  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.




                                  _____Lester Echols______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050017443                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/07/18                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1990/10/22                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 C5                           |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Personality Disorder                    |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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