RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  18 December 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070011190 


	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. John Slone

Chairperson

Ms. Marla J. N. Troup

Member

Mr. Thomas M. Ray

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 correction of Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show “Bipolar Disorder, 100 percent Disability” instead of “Personality Disorder.”

2.  The applicant states the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) changed his status to 100 percent disabled veteran due to bipolar disorder.  He would like his DD Form 214 to reflect that entry instead of the current personality disorder.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of an undated VA decision rating, describing his medical condition as Type II bipolar disorder, in support of his application. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 November 2001 for a period of 4 years and had a subsequent reenlistment on 24 December 2004.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 25B (Information Systems Operator/Analyst).  The highest rank he attained during his military service was sergeant (SGT)/E-5.

2.  The applicant's records further show that he served in Kuwait during the period 10 February 2004 to 29 January 2005 and in Iraq during an undetermined period in 2006.

3.  The applicant’s records show that he was awarded the Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Iraq Campaign Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, and the Overseas Service Ribbon.

4.  On 15 June 2006, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation at Fort Hood, Texas.  The military psychiatrist remarked that the applicant was evaluated for symptoms of mood lability, affective instability, rage fits, and feelings of worthlessness and suicidal ideation.  His symptoms peaked due to domestic problems while he was deployed.  The military psychiatrist also stated that the applicant relayed that his pattern of behavior had been volitional and pervasive, albeit less severe, for most of his adult life.  Occurring prior to his military service, the mild mood symptoms and three prior suicide attempts indicated that the most disabling pathology in the applicant's situation at the time of his mental evaluation was due to his personality disorder. 
5.  Subsequent to this mental evaluation, the military psychiatrist issued the applicant a physical profile for mood instability for a period of 2 months with no access to weapons or ammunition.

6.  On 21 June 2006, 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 (Personnel Separations), by reason of Borderline, Narcissistic Personality Disorder.  

7.  On 22 June 2006, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation due to his pending discharge.  The military psychologist remarked that the applicant was evaluated for follow-up care and that he had homicidal ideation and plan, but denied intent at that time.  He was placed on 24-hours unit watch until his scheduled return to the clinic for follow-up on 27 June 2006.

8.  On 22 June 2006, 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 in waiving his rights. He also acknowledged his right to have his case considered by an administrative separation board.  He further declined to submit a statement and waived his right to counsel representation.

9.  On 22 June 2006, by memorandum addressed to the separation authority, the Trial Defense Counsel, U.S. Army Trial Defense Service, Fort Hood Field Office, Fort Hood, Texas, requested the applicant's separation action be delayed pending the applicant obtaining a second mental evaluation.

10.  On 26 June 2006, by memorandum addressed to the separation authority, the Chief, Inpatient Psychiatry Service, Carl R. Darnall Army Medical Center, Fort Hood, Texas, stated that the applicant was medically evacuated from Iraq and that he was seen by mental health providers six times prior to his evacuation.  The apparent stressor at the time leading to his symptoms was finding out his spouse was having an affair.  After threatening staff in Iraq, the applicant was transferred to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Germany, and Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Washington, D.C, before arriving at Fort Hood, Texas.  The Chief added that her observation of the applicant led her to determine that the most impairing aspects of the applicant's illness was those symptoms caused by the deficiencies in his characterologic structure.  She concluded that he suffered from personality disorder. 

11.  On 27 June 2006, the immediate commander requested the applicant be separated in accordance with paragraph 5-13 of Army Regulation 635-200 for personality disorder.  He also recommended an Honorable Discharge.

12.  On 28 June 2006, the separation authority disapproved the request to delay the separation action and approved the applicant's discharge 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 6 July 2006 with an honorable discharge.  This form further confirms that he completed a total of 4 years, 7 months, and 24 days of creditable active military service.

13.  The applicant submitted an undated VA rating decision showing that the VA determined his condition is Type II, Bipolar Disorder, and that he was assigned 100 percent disability, effective 7 July 2006.

14.  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.

15.  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 (emphasis added) 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.  
16.  The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge which disqualify the Soldier from further military service.  The Army disability rating is to compensate the individual for the loss of a military career.  The VA does not have authority or responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service.  The VA awards disability ratings to veterans for service-connected conditions, including those conditions detected after discharge, to compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability.  As a result, these two Government agencies, operating under different policies, may arrive at a different disability rating based on the same impairment.  Unlike the Army, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his records should be corrected to show the Narrative Reason for Separation on his DD Form 214 as “Bipolar Disorder, 100 percent Disability” instead of “Personality Disorder.”

2.  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. 

3.  A physician trained in psychiatry evaluated and diagnosed the applicant 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.  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

__js____  __mjnt__  __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.



							John Slone
______________________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070011190
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20071218
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
20060706
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR 635-200, Chap 5
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
144.0000
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.