RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  14 November 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070008154 


	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.


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Ms. Loretta D. Gulley

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Ms. Linda D. Simmons

Chairperson

Ms. Carmen Duncan

Member

Mr. Qawiy A. Sabree

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 listed in Item 28 (Narrative Separation Authority) of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty) be changed to reflect a more favorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she joined the Army because she was guaranteed MOS 95B, Military Police.  She states, in effect, that she was distraught over the fact that she was sent to an Air Defense Artillery Unit, although she enjoyed Germany.  She continues that she was upset with being told that on her return stateside, she was going to a similar assignment.  The applicant states, in effect, that she spoke to a counselor and was told she could leave the military.  The applicant finally states, in effect, that she really didn’t pay attention to what was put on her separation papers (DD Form 214), as long as it said honorable and when she could be discharged.  

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation in support of this application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant’s record shows that she enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 2 March 1988.  She was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 95B (Military Police), and the highest rank she attained while serving on active duty was private first class (PFC).  

3.  On 9 August 1989, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation.  The examining psychiatrist diagnosed her with a severe mixed personality disorder.  The examining psychiatrist stated that the applicant has a deeply ingrained, maladaptive behavior of long duration which interferes with the member’s ability to perform duty.  Further, the disorder is so severe that the ability to function in the military environment is significantly impaired.  It is the opinion of this examiner that the member has no potential to meet mobilization requirements, clearly has no potential for useful service under conditions of full mobilization, and that discharge from the Army in accordance with paragraph 5-13, Army Regulation 635-200, would be in the best interests of both the individual and the Army.

4.  On 25 September 1989, the applicant’s unit commander notified her that he was contemplating action to separate her under the provisions of paragraph 
5-13, Army Regulation 635-200, based on her diagnosed personality disorder.  

5.  On 29 September 1989, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, its effects and of the rights available to her.  She completed a statement in which she acknowledged that she could be ineligible for many or all benefits as a veteran under both State and Federal laws and that she could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life based on her discharge.  Subsequent to her counseling, the applicant elected not to submit statements in her own behalf. 

6.  The separation authority approved the applicant’s separation under the provisions of paragraph 5-13, Army Regulation 635-200 due to a personality disorder, and directed that the applicant receive an honorable discharge.  On 
31 October 1989, the applicant was discharged accordingly.

7.  The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant upon her separation confirms, in Item 25 (Separation Authority), that the authority for her separation was paragraph 5-13, Army Regulation 635-200.  Item 26 (Separation Code) lists the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code as JFX and Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) lists the reason for her separation as "personality disorder".  The applicant authenticated the DD Form 214 with her signature in Item 21 (Signature of Member Being Separated).  

8.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for a change to her discharge within the ADRB's 15-year statute of limitations.





9.  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, 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.  It further specifies that the service of Soldiers separated under this provision will be characterized as honorable unless an ELS, in which case it will be uncharacterized.  

10.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.  The SPD code of JFX is the appropriate code to assign Soldiers separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-13, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of personality disorder.  Additionally, the SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table establishes RE-3 as the proper reentry code to assign to Soldiers separated with an SPD code of JFX.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention Item 28 of her DD Form 214 should be corrected to show a more favorable narrative reason for separation was carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.  

2.  The mental status evaluation confirms that the applicant’s condition is a deeply ingrained maladaptive pattern of behavior of long duration that interfered with her ability to function in the military environment.  

3.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder by a competent 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.  

4.  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

__LDS___  ___CD__  __QAS __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.




____Linda D. Simmons_____
          CHAIRPERSON





INDEX

CASE ID
AR
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
2007/11/14
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
Ms. Mitrano
ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.