RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  3 May 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060012977 


	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.


	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, reconsideration of his request for a medical discharge.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he disputes the ”personality disorder” diagnosis assigned him during his psychiatric evaluation that resulted in his  discharge from the Army.  He indicates that there is no evidence in his medical record, either prior to or subsequent to his active duty service, to support the finding that he had a "maladjustment to military service reflecting a life long pattern of recurrent and immature behavior, as well as an inability to relate to others.”  He further states that the following actions prove he had no personality disorder:  the completion of his background investigation resulting in his award of a Top-Secret security clearance; no mention of any psychological disorder or other inhibitors affecting his performance on any of his evaluations and/or counseling statements; the fact he was allowed to both extend and reenlist in the Army; the absence of any misconduct or non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) from his record; the fact he received the Army Good Conduct Medal (AGCM), Army Achievement Medal, Letter of Appreciation, and Certificate of Achievement; and the fact that he received an official Commendation from the 703rd Military Intelligence Battalion.

3.  The applicant provides a Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Rating Decision, dated 27 June 2006, in support of his 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 AR20050017225, on 20 July 2006.

2.  The applicant’s record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 30 June 1988, for a period of three years.  He was trained in, awarded and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 98C (Signal Intelligence Analyst), and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was specialist/E-4 (SPC/E-4).

3.  On 3 June 1991, the applicant voluntarily extended his 30 June 1988 enlistment by 34 months for a total period of 5 years and 10 months.  On 8 April 1992, he reenlisted in the Army for 4 years.
4.  On 19 April 1993, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation, at his commander’s request.  He was diagnosed with a personality disorder, not otherwise specified, with paranoid and borderline features.  The attending psychiatrist indicated that problems presented by the applicant were not amendable to hospitalization, brief treatment, rehabilitative transfer, disciplinary action, retraining, or a MOS reclassification.  He stated that it was unlikely that any rehabilitative measures would produce an effective Soldier of him.  He further indicated that the applicant’s maladjustment to military service reflected a life long pattern of recurrent and immature behavior, as well as an inability to relate effectively with others.  He continued by stating the applicant was unmotivated to become a productive Soldier and his future threats of suicide and homicide remained a possibility due to his immaturity, impulsivity and poor coping capacity.  The psychiatrist recommended appropriate command measures be taken rather than corrective measures through medical channels.  

5.  On 14 May 1993, the applicant underwent a separation physical examination and was found qualified for separation.

6.  On 27 May, the unit commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him from the Army for personality disorder, under the provisions of Chapter 5, paragraph 5-13, Army Regulation 635-200.  He cited the Report of Mental Status Evaluation as the basis for his action.

7.  On 27 May 1993, the applicant consulted with counsel and was advised of the basis for the separation action, and its effects, and of the rights available to him.  Subsequent to this counseling, the applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  The separation authority approved the applicant’s separation under the provisions of Chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-200 and directed he receive an honorable discharge.

8.  On 1 July 1993, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of paragraph 5-13, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason personality disorder.

9.  During its original review of the applicant’s case, the Board found that the applicant’s Report of Mental Status Evaluation confirmed that he suffered from many symptoms warranting his separation under the provisions of paragraph
5-13, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of personality disorder and that his separation processing was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that jeopardized his rights.


10.  The applicant provides a VA rating decision that shows he was granted a 
10 percent disability rating for a service connected acquired mental disorder to include Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and social Phobia. 

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-13 provides that a Soldier may be separated for personality disorder, not amounting to disability under Army Regulation 635-40, which interferes with assignment to or performance of duty.  The regulation requires that the 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 physician trained in psychiatry and psychiatric diagnosis.

12.  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.

13.  Army Regulation 635-40 governs the evaluation for physical fitness of Soldiers who may be unfit to perform their military duties because of physical disability.  Paragraph 4-10 of this regulation states, in pertinent part, that medical evaluation boards are convened to document a Soldier’s medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is affected by the Soldier’s status.  

14.  Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), paragraph 3-35 states, in pertinent part, that personality disorders may render an individual administratively unfit rather than unfit because of physical disability.  Interference with performance of effective duty in association with these conditions will be dealt with through appropriate administrative channels. 

15.  Title 38, United States Code, sections 1110 and 1131, 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.  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.  The VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings.  However, these changes do not call into question the application of the fitness standards and the disability ratings assigned by proper military medical authorities during the applicant’s processing through the Army PDES. 

16.  PTSD, an anxiety disorder, was recognized as a psychiatric disorder in 1980 with the publishing of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).  The condition is described in the current DSM-IV, pages 424 through 429.  The Army used established standards and procedures for determining fitness for entrance and retention and utilized those procedures and standards in evaluating the applicant at the time of his discharge.  The specific diagnostic label given to an individual’s condition a decade or more after his discharge from the service may change, but any change does not call into question the application of then existing fitness standards.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that he was misdiagnosed as having a “personality disorder” and that he should have been medically discharged from the Army has been carefully reconsidered.  However, the applicant has failed to provide any new evidence to corroborate his claim.

2.  The evidence of record still confirms that he suffered from many symptoms that led to the personality disorder diagnosis as reflected in the Report of Mental Status Evaluation, which was completed by competent medical authority.  Further, the applicant's separation physical examination confirms he was not suffering from a disabling mental condition that would have supported his separation processing through medical channels at the time of his separation.  

3.  Further, the DD Form 214 issued to the applicant upon his separation contains the authority and reason for his separation, and the applicant authenticated this document with his signature on the date of his separation.  In effect, his signature was his verification that the information contained on the separation document, to include the reason for his separation, was correct at the time the document was prepared and issued.  There is no indication that the applicant objected to his personality disorder discharge at the time, or that he suffered from a disabling mental condition that would have support his processing through the Army's Physical Disability Evaluation System.  Therefore, 

it is concluded that the applicant's separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All requirements of law and regulation were met, and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout this process.  

4.  The VA Rating Decision provided by the applicant was also considered.  However, the Army used established standards and procedures for determining fitness for entrance and retention and utilized those procedures and standards in evaluating the applicant at the time of his discharge.  The specific diagnostic label given to an individual’s condition years after his discharge from the service may change, but any change does not call into question the application of then existing fitness standards.

5.  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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___RTD _  __MJF __  __RML   _  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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20050017225 dated 20 July 2006.




_____Richard T. Dunbar_____
          CHAIRPERSON


INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060012977
SUFFIX

RECON
YES
DATE BOARDED
2007/05/03
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
HD
DATE OF DISCHARGE
1993/07/01
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR 635-200
DISCHARGE REASON
Personality Disorder
BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
Mr. Schwartz
ISSUES         1.
108.0000
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.