RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  1 March 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060008738 


	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. Gerard W. Schwartz

Acting Director

Ms. Antoinette Farley

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Thomas M. Ray

Chairperson

Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann

Member

Mr. James R. Hastie

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 in effect, requests that her honorable discharge be changed to a medical discharge.

2.  The applicant in effect, states that the narrative reason for separation should reflect a mental disorder instead of "Physical Condition, Not a Disability" which is currently shown on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).  The applicant states that her discharge was not correctly processed in accordance with Army Regulations 635-200, (Personnel Separations), Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), and Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation).  The applicant continues that she was denied her right to a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) through the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).  

3.  The applicant provides a DD Form 214; excerpts from Army Regulation 
635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), Army Regulation 
635-40, chapter 4 paragraph 4-3; Secretary of the Navy Instruction (SECNAVINST) 1850.4E, paragraph 3906 (Examination shall be included in any medical board report submitted for disability evaluation); Wrangler Mental Health Sustainment Brigade, 4th Infantry Division (Mechanized) Forward Operating Base Taji, memorandum, dated 15 March 2006; Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 38, part 4.129 (Mental disorders due to traumatic stress); CFR Title 38, part 4.130 (Schedule of ratings---Mental Disorders), Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders of Anxiety Disorders (DSM-IV) rating 404 (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder); and Mood Disorders rating 9434 (Major Depressive Disorder).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's records show she entered the Regular Army on 1 August 1989.  After completion of basic and advanced individual training, she was awarded military occupational specialty 92A10 (Automated Logistical).  

2.  A 2 March 2006 memorandum from the Wrangler Mental Health Sustainment Brigade, Taji, Iraq, shows the applicant underwent a clinical evaluation for depression.  The examining medical officer states that the applicant accepted therapy, medication, and was placed under risk management due to concern of suicidal gesture.  



3.  The examining medical officer diagnosed the applicant with the following Diagnostic Findings under Axis I: "Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent, Moderate Occupational Problem, Axis II: None, Axis III None, Axis IV, Occupational Problems, and Axis V: 65 (currently within normal limits).  The examining medical officer also concluded the applicant appeared committed to working through her challenges and was not currently suicidal. 

4.  A DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 9 March 2006, shows the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation by a Clinical Psychologist, Medical Corp Officer at Wrangler Mental Health Sustainment Brigade, Taji, Iraq.  The examining medical officer found that there were no disqualifying mental defects sufficient to warrant separation through medical channels, that the applicant was mentally responsible, both to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and that she had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.

5.  The examining medical officer further remarked that the Soldier was not a danger to self and/or others.  The examining medical officer stated that the Soldier presented to Mental Health as a result of suicidal ideation, plan, and intent.  The examining medical officer further stated that the Soldier had been provided mental health support for most of her 17 years of active duty service in the Army.  The examining medical officer stated that this presentation was consistent with some clinical disorders and strongly indicated deeply rooted personality deficits.  The examining medical officer further stated that a MEB was not the appropriate course of action in this case and the Soldier's discontent with her current unit indicates that she externalizes responsibility for problems rather than her own responsibility.  

6.  The examining medical officer stated that the Soldier had been supported by her command for counseling, had not made improvement, and continued to have these symptoms in a military structure.  The examining medical officer further stated that the Soldier did not have the internal attributes to function in a garrison environment, much less a theater of war.  

7.  The examining medical officer recommended the applicant be administratively separated under the provisions of chapter 5-17 (Other Physical or Mental Disorders) for the safety of the Soldier and the benefit of the Army.  The examining medical officer further stated that the command was not required to comply with the request, however, failure to do so, constitutes an assumption of risk by the unit for the Soldier's safety.   

8.  DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form), dated 19 March 2006, shows the applicant was counseled by her company commander regarding the findings of the mental health evaluation conducted on 8 March 2006.  This form shows the company commander agreed with the recommendation to discharge the applicant from the military for her safety and the benefit of the Army.  This form further shows that the applicant agreed with the information stated and authenticated the form. 

9.  On 19 March 2006, the applicant was notified that she was being considered for elimination from the service under the provisions of chapter 5-17 of Army Regulation 635-200 for other designated physical or mental condition.  

10.  On 27 March 2006, the applicant consulted with counsel on the basis of the separation action for Other Designated Physical or Mental Conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation, 635-200 Chapter 5-17, and was advised of its effect; of the rights available to her; and the effect of any action taken by her in waiving any of her rights.  The applicant acknowledged that she understood she may be given an honorable or general discharge, if eliminated from the service, and understood that she may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge, under honorable conditions is issued to him.  

11.  On 19 April 2006, counsel acting in behalf of the applicant submitted a request for withdrawal of Waiver to an Administrative Separation Board.  Counsel stated that the applicant initially received counseling from a "TDS" (Trial Defense Services) defense counsel who recommended waiving the board in return for a characterization of service no less favorable than honorable.  

12.  Counsel further stated the recommendation was based on the company commander's recommendation of a general under honorable conditions discharge; therefore, the advice may not have been the same if the proper recommendation was initially given.  Counsel stated that the applicant consulted with defense counsel telephonically, and he failed to sign her election of rights paperwork.  The applicant requested a rehabilitative transfer to a unit outside of the 4th Infantry Division, maintained that she faithfully served the nation for nearly 17 years, and deserved fair consideration by her command.  Counsel also stated that the applicant may not have received comprehensive advice from TDS representation during the separation counseling.  



13.  In an undated letter, the applicant's intermediate commander acknowledged her conditional waiver and recommended she be separated from the Army prior to the expiration of her current term of service with an honorable discharge.

14.  An undated letter from the separation authority shows the applicant's request was approved and she was to be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5-17 for other designated physical or mental conditions and it was directed that the applicant be issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

15.  On 4 May 2006, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 she was issued confirms she completed a total of 16 years, 9 months, and 
4 days of creditable active military service.

16.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-17 specifically provides that Soldiers may be separated on the basis of other physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability that potentially interfere with assignment to or performance of duty.  Such conditions may include, but are not limited to – Chronic Airsickness; Chronic Seasickness; Enuresis, Sleepwalking; Dyslexia; Severe Nightmares; Claustrophobia; and other disorders manifesting disturbances of perception, thinking, emotional control or behavior sufficiently severe that the Soldier's ability to effectively perform military duties are significantly impaired.

17.  Paragraph 5-17 of Army Regulation 635-200 further indicates that when a commander determines that a Soldier has a physical or mental condition that potentially interferes with assignment to or performance of duty, the commander will refer the Soldier for a medical examination and/or mental status evaluation.

18.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separations Document) establishes the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  In pertinent part, it directs that the regulatory authority authorizing the separation will be entered in item number 25 of the DD Form 214.  Item number 28 will contain the narrative reason for separation, as shown in Army Regulation 635-5-1 based on the regulatory authority.






19.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated reasons.  The regulation shows that the separation program designator “JFV” as shown on the applicant’s DD Form 214 specifies the narrative reason for discharge as “Condition, Not a Disability” and that the authority for discharge under this separation program designator is “AR 635-200, paragraph 5-17”.

20.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), paragraph 3-1, provides that the mere presence of an impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability.  In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the member reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, rank, grade or rating.

21.  Secretary of the Navy Instruction (SECNAVINST) 1850.4E21 (Department of the Navy Disability Evaluation Manual), paragraph 3906, provides that in the instance of attempted suicide, the member concerned shall undergo psychiatric examination, and the report of that examination shall be included in any medical board report submitted for disability evaluation. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that the narrative reason for her discharge should be changed and that her records should show she was medically discharged based on her mental disorder.

2.  The applicant also contends that she was denied the right to a MEB as part of her out processing from the Army.  The MEB is the first step in the Army’s Disability processing network.  Additionally a MEB can be performed when indicated by the Unit Commander, the treating physician, or if ordered by the Medical Treatment Facility Commander.  

3.  The purpose of the MEB is to determine if the patient is disqualified for retention in the Army in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501, Chapter 3.  In the case of the applicant she had a Report of Mental Evaluation, dated 9 March 2006, signed by a qualified Clinical Psychologist.  The Report of Mental Evaluation stated that a MEB was not the appropriate course of action at that time and recommended she be separated under the provisions of paragraph 
5-17 of Army Regulation 635-200. 

4.  This applicant's reference to SECNAVINST 1850.4E, only applies to the medical board processing of Naval Personnel, and; therefore, is not applicable in this case. 

5.  The record confirms that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the applicant's rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  The record further shows the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects her record of undistinguished service during the enlistment under review.    

6.  The applicant's prior honorable service is properly and adequately documented in the DD Form 214; however, the evidence does not sufficiently establish a basis for a MEB or changing the narrative reason of the discharge for the period of service under review.  As a result, it would not be appropriate or serve the interest of justice or equity to grant the requested relief.  

7.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must satisfactorily show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_JCR____  _JRH___  _TMR___  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.




___Thomas M. Ray___
          CHAIRPERSON
INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060008738
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
YYYYMMDD
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.