RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  3 April 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060014706 


	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

Mr. Michael J. Fowler

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Samuel Crumpler

Chairperson

Mr. Robert Rogers

Member

Mr. Patrick H. McGann Jr.

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 the separation authority, separation code, reenlistment code, and narrative reason for separation be removed from her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) with the ending period 14 December 1979. 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the reason for her separation from the military was incorrect which resulted in her receiving incorrect codes listed on her DD Form 214.  The applicant states that subsequent analysis of her condition prove that she suffers from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) that was a direct result of trauma that was incurred while she was a member of the military.

3.  The applicant provides her DD Form 214 and a three-page Veterans Affairs (VA) Psychiatric Evaluation Progress Notes, dated 22 September 2005.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which occurred on 14 December 1979.  The application submitted in this case is dated 12 July 2006.

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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 August 1976 and successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training.  She was awarded military occupational specialty 71G (Medical Records Specialist).

4.  On 2 November 1979, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation and was diagnosed with unspecified personality disorder, chronic, severe; manifested by impulsivity, inappropriate intense anger, affective instability, history of physically self-damaging acts, chronic feeling of emptiness, suggestive of borderline pathology [line of duty: No, not due to own misconduct, existed prior to service (EPTS).  

5.  The military medical psychiatrist stated the applicant was having difficulties in her unit adjusting to her current work situation.  He further states that the applicant had been getting angry and depressed that resulted in decreased job performance.  He continued that the applicant's difficulties in the Army had not been resolved despite counseling from her unit and local mental health authorities as well as during her inpatient psychiatric hospitalization.  The military medical psychiatrist stated that there was no psychiatric disease or defect which warranted disposition through medical channels.  

6.  The psychiatrist stated, in effect, that such disorders are recalcitrant to attempts at rehabilitation.  In his professional opinion the applicant's condition was not amendable to hospitalization, treatment, transfer, disciplinary action, training, or reclassification to another type of duty in the military.  The psychiatrist recommended that the applicant be separated under the provisions of chapter 
13 of Army Regulation 600-200.

7.  A Standard Form (SF) 502 (Narrative Summary (NARSUM)), dated 
15 November 1979, shows that the applicant was hospitalized for psychiatric treatment.  The document states that the applicant complained of rapid mood swings.  She stated "when she gets depressed, she gets quiet and angry, feeling rageful and, at times, losing control and feeling like throwing things although she never does."  The applicant further described her predominant aspects of depression episodes predating her Army career by engaging in self-destructive behavior.  The applicant further stated that she was raped two years prior by another service member.  She stated that she had not "gotten over it" and continues to have prominent memories of this significant event.

8.  On 28 November 1979, the applicant's unit commander notified her of pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for personality disorder.  The applicant was advised of her rights.  She consulted with legal counsel, waived consideration of her case by a board of officers, and did not submit statements in her own behalf.

9.  A Staff Judge Advocate General Corps (JAGC) counselor reviewed the applicant's discharge proceedings on 6 December 1979.  The JAGC counselor stated that "The psychiatrist's diagnostic impression was mixed personality disorder."  In addition, the JAGC counselor recommended rehabilitation requirements be waived and concurred with the recommendation that the applicant be discharged with issuance of an Honorable Discharge Certificate.



10.  The separation authority approved the recommendation.  On 14 December 1979, the applicant separated from the service after completing 3 years, 
3 months, and 20 days of creditable active service.  Her DD Form 214 shows in item 25 (Separation Authority) the entry "Para 13-4b, AR 635-200," item 
26 (Separation Code) shows the entry "JMB" [personality disorder], item 
27 (Reenlistment Code) shows the "RE-3," and item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) shows the entry "UNSUITABILITY PERSONALITY DISORDER."

11.  The applicant provided a three-page VA Psychiatric Evaluation Progress Notes, dated 22 September 2005, that shows she was diagnosed with PTSD; chronic major depression, recurrent, due to progression of PTSD; and panic disorders, causally related to military sexual trauma.

12.  Chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, applied to separation for unsuitability.  At that time, paragraph 13-4b provided for the separation of individuals for personality disorder.  This regulation stated that as determined by medical authority (i.e., the diagnosis will have been established by a physician trained in psychiatry and psychiatric diagnosis) and described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM II) of Mental Disorders, 2nd Edition, Committee on Nomenclature and Statistics, American Psychiatric Association, Washington, DC 1968) this condition is a deeply ingrained, maladaptive pattern of behavior of long duration which interferes with the member's ability to perform duty.  Exception:  Combat exhaustion and other acute situation maladjustments.  From an Army medical viewpoint, every member who is correctly diagnosed as having a personality disorder is capable of controlling his/her actions, and no member may be discharged pursuant to this paragraph unless he/she meets Army medical standards for retention.

13.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes), in effect at the time, prescribed 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 SPD “JMB" at the time of the applicant's discharge specified a narrative reason for discharge as "Unsuitability Personality Disorder."

14.  Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  Army Regulation 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the US Army Reserve.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes, including RA RE codes.  RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  It is acknowledged that the applicant's NARSUM verified she had been raped and the VA currently has diagnosed her with PTSD.  However, the NARSUM further showed that she had predominant aspects of depression episodes predating her Army career by engaging in self-destructive behavior.

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 13-4b of Army Regulation 635-200 for unsuitability due to personality disorder.  She was diagnosed with a personality disorder by a competent military medical authority.  Based on this diagnosis, her 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 the separation process.  

3.  Based on the diagnosis by a competent military medical authority paragraph 13-4b (Personality Disorder) of Army Regulation 635-200 was the proper authority for the applicant’s separation.  The applicant's narrative reason for separation is correct and was applied in accordance with the applicable regulations.  Therefore, the separation authority on her DD Form 214 is correct.

4.  Records show the applicant was discharged with a separation code of "JMB" (Personality Disorder) and was assigned a RE code of RE-3 in accordance with the governing regulation in effect at the time.

5.  There is no conclusive evidence of record which shows the assigned SPD or RE codes are in error or unjust.  

6.  In the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, the applicant's DD Form 214 is correct as currently constituted and there is an insufficient basis for amending it.

7.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 14 December 1979; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 
13 December 1982.  However, the applicant did not 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

__SC ___  __RA ___  ___PHM_  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.




____ Samuel Crumpler___
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060014706
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
3 APRIL 2007
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
MR. SCHWARTZ
ISSUES         1.
110.0200.0000
2.
144.7800.0000
3.
100.0300.0000
4.

5.

6.