RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  17 January 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070011955 


	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. Jeanne Marie Rowan

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr

Chairperson

Mr. John T. Meixell

Member

Mr. Rowland C. Heflin

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 narrative reason and separation code be changed on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) with a separation date of 19 May 1988.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that her current DD Form 214 lists the narrative reason as "unsatisfactory performance" and the separation code as "JHJ" which she states is an injustice in that she now believes that her personal conduct and behavior that she exhibited on active duty was the result of a service connected mental health condition. 

3.  The applicant provides in support of her application a copy of her DD Form 214 and her Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits entitlement statement dated 14 August 2007, which shows that she was granted a service connected disability identified as dysthymia (depression), rated 50 percent disabling.  The effective date of the VA decision was 28 December 2006.  She also provided a copy of a letter from her servicing Veterans Services Officer (VSO) that states, in effect, that the current narrative reason and separation code are negatively affecting the applicant's ability to obtain gainful employment. 

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.  On 1 August 1986, the applicant enlisted in the U. S. Army.  Records show that she completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) 91T (Animal Care Specialist). The highest rank she attained while serving on active duty was private/pay grade E-2.

3.  On 6 November 1986, the applicant was referred to the Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) Psychiatry Clinic for evaluation.  She was interviewed and two psychometric tests that included the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised (WAIS-R) were administered to her.  The psychometric tests showed she was in the lower limits of the average range in comparison to the normative population and that the verbal and performance subtest scores suggested significant language skill deficiencies.  She reported during the psychological interview that she had attention deficient tendencies and had been medicated for hyperactivity in her early childhood years.  She also reported that she had been sexually abused on three separate occasions by male relatives.  The psychiatrist stated, "The patient is an emotionally-needy individual who lacks the ego strength, social skills, and trust of others required to enter into the type of interpersonal relations which could meet her needs.  This apparent lack of trust appears connected to considerable hostility and resentment harbored against others who she feels have tried to influence or control her.  These strong, negative feelings would, most likely, only be expressed in an indirect or passive-aggressive fashion."  

4.  The medical diagnostic impression, based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III), made by the psychiatrist on 6 November 1986, was the applicant has Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Emotional Features (Axis I 309.28) and Mixed Personality Disorder Traits, Paranoid, Dependent and Borderline (Axis II 301.89).  

5.  On 26 June 1987, the applicant's commander directed she undergo a psychological evaluation by medical personnel at the Fort Eustis, Virginia Mental Health Clinic.  DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation) shows that the applicant had been evaluated and was given psychological tests at WRAMC on 6 November 1986.  The report shows that she was a self-referral to WRAMC and that she was treated for depression and was instructed on medication management.  Further, the psychiatrist reported that the applicant suffered from a failure of integration, had attention related issues and had an impaired self-ideation.

6.  On 29 June 1987, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for disobeying a lawful order of a superior commissioned officer and for dereliction in the performance of her duties for leaving a military vehicle unsecured.  The punishment imposed was reduction in grade to private/pay grade E-1, 7 days extra duty, and 7 days restriction. 

7  On 17 August 1987, the applicant was granted a rehabilitative transfer from the Fort Monroe Veterinary Clinic to the Fort Eustis Veterinary Clinic due to her inability to adequately perform her MOS duties.

8.  A Record of Counseling shows the applicant received counseling that shows she was told that her continued behavior of a discreditable nature could result in further disciplinary action to include initiation of elimination proceedings.  She was also told the types of discharges she could receive.  The record shows 16 separate counseling sessions were conducted and documented during the period from 24 August 1987 to 18 March 1988.  The counseling statements show she was negligent in the performance of her MOS duties and soldierly skills.

9.  On 7 January 1988, a lieutenant, who stated that her duty performance continued to be substandard, counseled the applicant and stated separation action under the provisions of Chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200 would be initiated if her duty performance did not immediately improve.  The applicant nonconcurred with the lieutenant's statement and stated, in effect, that she realized she had made some mistakes but when she asked for help she did not receive help or that she did not comprehend the instructions. 

10.  On an unknown date, the applicant's company commander notified her that he was initiating separation under the provisions of Chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel) for unsatisfactory performance.  The company commander recommended discharge due to her untrainability as a Soldier, her error in judgment to include chronic indebtness, and her inability to follow detailed instructions.  The company commander also noted that rehabilitation efforts had been futile with her receiving numerous counseling statements without a positive effort on her behalf to correct her identified behavioral deficiencies.  

11.  On an unknown date, the applicant sought legal counsel for the contemplated discharge due to unsatisfactory performance.  She elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf and she further acknowledged that she would be ineligible to apply for reenlistment in the Army for a period of 2 years after her discharge. 

12.  On 6 May 1988, the applicant was evaluated by a psychiatrist at Fort Eustis, Virginia.  The psychiatrist medically cleared the applicant for separation stating she was mentally responsible and that she had the capacity to understand and participate in the separation proceedings.  Further, the psychiatrist stated the applicant did not have a diagnosis, which required disposition through medical channels, and that there was no evidence of mental disease or defect. 
13.  On an unknown date, the applicant's commander recommended her for discharge under the provisions of Chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 due to the applicant's unsatisfactory performance.

14.  On 12 May 1988, the separation authority directed the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance, and that she receive an honorable discharge.  

15.  On 19 May 1988, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The separation document (DD Form 214) the applicant was issued at the time of her discharge confirms she was discharged and her characterization of service was honorable.  This form further confirms that she completed 1 year, 9 months, and 19 days of creditable active military service.  The DD Form 214 also shows that the narrative reason for separation was unsatisfactory performance and that her separation code was JHJ.

16.  On 14 July 1994, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's appeal for a change of reason to her discharge.  The ADRB found that the command attempted to assist the applicant in the performance of her duties and provided specific corrective counseling, a rehabilitative transfer, and imposed nonjudicial punishment.  The ADRB found the applicant failed to respond to the Army's methodology of performance counseling. 

17.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of this regulation, in effect at the time, provides for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when in the commander’s judgment the individual will not become a satisfactory Soldier; retention will have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order and morale; the service member will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation will continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely.  Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

18.  Army Regulation 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (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 regulation in effect at the time, stated that the SPD code of JHJ was the appropriate code to assign to Soldiers separated under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of unsatisfactory performance.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table in effect at the time established RE-3 as the proper code to assign members separated with this SPD code.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that the narrative reason and the separation code on her DD Form 214 should be changed because she suffered from an injustice in 1988 when she was separated for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of chapter 13, AR 635-200.  The applicant provided a detailed VA benefits entitlement document, which shows she was diagnosed with dysthymia (depression).  She further contends that her duty performance, personal conduct, and behavior when she was on active duty were a direct result of her service connected mental health conditions.  

2.  While the applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder while on active duty, she was determined to be free of any medical condition which would require disposition through medical channels.

3.  The fact that the applicant was diagnosed with dysthymia, which is a mild form of depression, 18 years after her discharge, in no way indicated that her discharge for unsatisfactory performance was improper or unjust.

4.  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

__HOF  _   __RCH__  __JTM___  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.





_____Hubert O. Fry, Jr.____
          CHAIRPERSON


INDEX

CASE ID
AR
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20080117
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.