RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  13 December 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070010990 


	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

Mr. Mohammed R. Elhaj

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann

Chairperson

Mr. John G. Heck

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 Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be changed to show he was separated with a fully honorable discharge.  He also requests financial compensation resulting from this correction.

2.  The applicant states that he was singled out, discriminated against, and misdiagnosed, due, in large part, to his age, ethnic group, and related circumstances. 

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his respondent statement he submitted to his commander on 9 March 1992 and copies of supporting statements submitted on his behalf in March 1992, in support of his 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 records show that he was born on 18 May 1973 and enlisted in the Regular Army at the age of 18 on 6 February 1991 for a period of 2 years and 16 weeks.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11H (Heavy Anti-armor Weapons Infantryman).  The highest rank he attained during his military service was private first class (PFC)/E-3.  His records also show that he served in Korea during the period 27 May 1991 through 26 May 1992.

3.  The applicant’s records further show that he was awarded the National Defense Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon, the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Bade with Rifle Bar, the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar, the Expert Marksmanship 
Qualification Badge with TOW Gunner Bar, the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with ITV Gunner Bar, and the Army Lapel Button.  The applicant's records do not show any significant acts of valor during his military service.

4.  The applicant's service records reveal multiple counseling statements by his supervisor, some of which addressed his drinking problem culminating in an incident on 24 February 1992 where the applicant showed up at the morning formation unshaven, unable to follow instructions, and extremely hyperactive.

5.  On 25 February 1992, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation while assigned to the 2nd Infantry Division, Korea.  The military psychiatrist remarked that the applicant was evaluated and diagnosed with personality disorder.  His maladaptive pattern of behaviors and attitudes was to such a degree that his ability to adapt and function effectively within the military environment was significantly impaired.  The military psychiatrist further remarked that it was unlikely that the applicant would respond to short-term counseling, treatment, or rehabilitation efforts.  It was probable that continued retention would require undue supervision and/or management on the part of the command.  The military psychiatrist concluded that administrative separation under paragraph 5-13 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) was warranted by the results of this evaluation. 

6.  On 1 March 992, the immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with paragraph 5-13 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of personality disorder.  The immediate commander recommended an expeditious separation with the issuance of an honorable discharge.  The immediate commander further added that the applicant exhibited and was diagnosed as having a deeply-ingrained maladaptive pattern of behavior of long duration that significantly interferes with his ability to perform military duties. 

7.  On 9 March 1992, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation memorandum, consulted with legal counsel, and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation for personality disorder and its effects; of the rights available to him; and of the effect of any action taken by him.  He elected to submit a statement responding to the commander's intent to initiate separation action against him.  In his statement, the applicant stated that his section sergeant embarrassed him in front of the whole company by yelling at him and making him do push-ups in front of everyone.  He further commented that attached Korean soldiers were treated better than American Soldiers and that the 
overall command climate was poor.  He also commented that most of the counseling statements for September, October, and November 1991 were prepared late and presented to him in February 1992, implying the poor leadership he had.  He concluded by appealing to the Commander to suspend the separation action for a probationary period of six months that would give him the chance to prove himself.

8.  On 21 March 1992, the immediate commander requested the applicant be separated in accordance with paragraph 5-13 of Army Regulation 635-200 for personality disorder following nine months of voluntary counseling by mental health authorities.  He also recommended an Honorable Discharge.

9.  On 23 April 1992, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of paragraph 5-13 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of Personality Disorder and directed the applicant be furnished an Honorable Discharge Certificate.  The DD Form 214 the applicant was issued at the time of his separation confirms he was separated on 27 May 1992 with an honorable discharge.  This form further confirms that he completed a total of 1 year, 3 months, and 22 days of creditable active military service.

10.  The applicant's records do not reflect any instances of discrimination or that he was treated any differently than any other Soldier assigned to the same unit.  The records further do not show that the applicant addressed the issue of discrimination with his chain of command or with any supporting agencies at the installation to which he was assigned. 

11.  The applicant submitted copies of the statements submitted by other Soldiers in March 1992 in rebuttal of the commander's intent to separate him.  The statements clearly identified the applicant as a hard working individual, working under a poor section sergeant who did not exercise good leadership. 

12.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5, paragraph 5-13, sets the policy and prescribes procedures for separating members with a personality disorder.  Paragraph 5-13, specifies that a Soldier may be separated for personality disorders (not amounting to disability) that interferes with assignment or with performance of duty, when so disposed as indicated in the Soldier's ability to perform duty.  The diagnosis of personality disorder must have been established by a psychiatrist or doctoral-level clinical psychologist with necessary and appropriate professional credentials who is privileged to conduct mental health evaluations for the Department of Defense components.  When it has 
been determined that separation under this paragraph is appropriate, the unit commander will take the actions specified in the notification procedure.  The service of a Soldier separated per this paragraph will be characterized as honorable.

13.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) establishes the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  The regulation directs, in pertinent part, that the purpose of the separation document is to provide the individual with documentary evidence of their military service.  It is important that information entered on the form should be complete and accurate.  This regulation specified that the DD Form 214 is a summary of a Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty to include attendance at basic and advanced training.  It also states, in pertinent part, that the DD Form 214 will be prepared for all personnel at the time of their retirement, discharge, or release from active duty.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that the narrative reason for separation on his 
DD Form 214 should be corrected to reflect a fully honorable discharge, and that he should receive financial compensation as a result of this correction.

2.  There is no evidence in the applicant's records that he suffered any discriminatory practices during his military service.  Additionally, there is no evidence that indicates that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.

3.  There is no evidence in the applicant's records that his mental evaluation was not conducted to standard.  A physician trained in psychiatry evaluated and diagnosed him as suffering from a personality disorder that impaired his ability to perform his duties.  The applicant was discharged accordingly under the provisions of paragraph 5-13 of Army Regulation 635-200.  The only valid narrative reason for discharge permitted under that paragraph is "Personality Disorder.”

4.  Evidence of record shows that the applicant's separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for that separation were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case. 


5.  There is no evidence in the available records and the applicant has provided no evidence that shows irregularity, injustice, or inequity in his separation.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show, 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.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jcr___  __jgh___  __qas___  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.



							Jeffrey C. Redmann
______________________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070010990
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20071213
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
19920527
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR 635-200, Chap 5
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
144.0000
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.