RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  21 February 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070012720 


	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. Dean L. Turnbull

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Ms. Margaret K. Patterson

Chairperson

Ms. Sherri V. Ward

Member

Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann

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 his reason for discharge, personality disorder, should be corrected to show unsatisfactory performance.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his honorable discharge under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separation), chapter  
5-13 should be revoked or, alternatively, be changed to chapter 13.  Also, he would like to receive his full reenlistment bonus.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of a statement with attachments from his counsel dated 4 September 2007.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests, in effect, that the Board correct the applicant's reason for separation from personality disorder to unsatisfactory performance.

2.  Counsel states, in effect, that a personality disorder discharge stigmatizes a person for life and for that reason the applicant's discharge for personality disorder was not appropriate when separation was warranted under chapters  
4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, or 18 of the same regulation.  The Army could have discharged the applicant for his actions under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance.  He would have received an honorable discharge that was certainly warranted in light of his years of service to his country.  

3.  Counsel states that the applicant was counseled by his superior noncommissioned officer (SNCO) who clearly stated that in her judgment, the applicant's conduct constituted a clear violation of Article 91 and 92 of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and then she provided a procedural sequence directly at odds with the requirement of chapter 5-13(c).  Instead of recognizing a personality disorder discharge as the last resort, she stated the exact opposite.  Counsel states that the SNCO counseled the applicant on the ramifications of virtually all discharge possibilities except for her and the commander's first choice for chapter 5-13, personality disorder.  The applicant was not advised that a personality disorder discharge would require him to forfeit 



his reenlistment bonus and that he would be characterized for life as mentally defective, which would limit severely and unfairly his ability to pursue a career in the military and many civilian jobs.

4.  Counsel further states, in effect, that the applicant's personality disorder diagnosis was inadequate because the applicant completed an entire prior enlistment without manifesting any behavior evidencing a personality disorder.  The test used to determine the applicant's personality disorder is invalid and the mental health evaluation and testing of both psychologists was faulty and dishonest.  Separation processing should not have been initiated until the applicant was counseled formally concerning deficiencies and was afforded ample opportunity to overcome the deficiencies.  The applicant has never been professionally and properly diagnosed with a personality disorder.

5.  Counsel provides copies of exhibits A through I, which contains the applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty); a 10 page article from the Internet; a sample "Routine Command Directed Evaluation" memorandum; DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form); emailed messages with a facsimile unsigned attachment from the Assessment and Psychotherapy Center of the Monterey Peninsula dated 12 July 2007; a memorandum for record from the applicant's commander dated 15 February 2007; and a memorandum from the U.S. Army Trial Defense Services, Fort Lewis, Washington dated 28 February 2007.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military service records show that he entered active duty on  
17 April 2001.  He completed all the necessary training and was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) 98H (Morse Interceptor).  He was honorably released from active duty and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) Army Human Resources Command, St. Louis, Missouri on 16 April 2005.  He had completed a total of 4 years of active service. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that he refused to authenticate this document by signing his name in block 21.

2.  The applicant reenlisted into the Regular Army on 11 May 2006.  On  
8 February 2007, the applicant received counseling from his SNCO for insubordinate conduct towards a noncommissioned officer (NCO) and failure to obey an order or regulation, a violation of Articles 91 and 92.  The applicant disagreed with the counseling and provided a brief remark.  In his remark, he 

stated, in effect, that the SNCO who conducted the counseling made a good judgment of his character but the information given to the SNCO was untrue and it did not reflect the incident in question, in which he said he was shoved by another Soldier instead of his hand being placed on him.

3.  The memorandum for record that was submitted by the applicant's commander states, in effect, the applicant had displayed increasingly erratic and inappropriate behavior over the past few months.  On 8 January 2007, the applicant went to the Troop Medical Center (TMC) to request quarters for stress. During his follow up appointment the applicant had behaved in an odd and off-putting way, so he was recommended to be command referred to the Wellness Center.

4.  The memorandum for record states that the applicant's platoon sergeant informed the commander that the applicant had seemed very agitated and he was convinced that the school's grading system was flawed.  Also, the commander was told that the school had lodged a complaint against the applicant because he was attempting to initiate improper relations with a military spouse and his professor.  Based on that information the applicant was command directed to the Mental Health Evaluation for Behavior Management.

5.  The memorandum continues to state that the applicant had two sessions with the psychologist.  Based on the two sessions, the psychologist recommended that the applicant could stay in the Army if he was moved to a less demanding MOS that does not require a security clearance because his condition was not treatable, which made him a security risk.  In the meantime, the applicant was scheduled for a Defense Language Proficiency Test (DLPT).

6.  On 7 February 2007, the applicant had a major break down while he was waiting for his first section of the DLPT.  During that incident the applicant was convinced that his squad leader had pushed him and therefore, he started to scream at his squad leader.  After several attempts to calm the applicant down the platoon sergeant brought him to the commander's office.  The commander immediately sent the applicant to the Wellness Center.  The commander then read sworn statements that the platoon sergeant took from members of the squad, a test proctor, and a Army commissioned officer, all of which showed that the squad leader did not push the applicant.  The commander spoke to the psychologist and then he prepared a command directed Mental Health Evaluation for fitness for duty.  



7.  On 8 February 2007, the commander counseled the applicant to inform him that he was being command referred for a fitness for duty evaluation.  On  
14 February 2007, the psychologist diagnosed the applicant's conditions to have worsened and that he now had paranoid features.  The psychologist stated that the applicant's condition was not treatable and it rendered him non-deployable and recommended that the applicant be expeditiously separated under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-13.

8.  The commander stated, in effect, that the applicant had the desire to remain in the military and was very motivated to succeed.  However, he was already displaying that he wouldn't be able to meet the stresses of the military and requirements of his MOS in the language school.  The commander stated it was clear that the applicant would only continue to have difficulty in the future even if he was to change his MOS and move to another duty assignment.  The applicant would be a security and tactical risk on the battlefield.  The commander recommended separation for the good of the Soldier and the Army.

9.  The memorandum from U.S. Army Trial Defense Services, Fort Lewis, Washington dated 28 February 2007, is from the applicant's counsel stated, in effect, that the applicant separation packet was legally defective insufficient since the attempts to fulfill the counseling requirement of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13c are inadequate.  A Soldier cannot be separated until he received formal counseling and has been afforded the opportunity to correct or overcome the deficiencies.  Both counseling that the applicant received for separation under the provisions of paragraph 5-13 for personality disorder was not complete.  The counseling does not specify what deficiencies the applicant had or does it contains guidance for the applicant to overcome those deficiencies.  There is no mention of how a deficiency relates to the personality disorder.  Finally, it appears that the decision to proceed with separation under provision of chapter 5-13, was made because a psychologist recommended it to the commander.

10.  The applicant's military service records do not contain a copy of his medical records or mental health records.

11.  The applicant's discharge packet was not included in his records.  However, the DD Form 214 he was issued shows that he was honorably discharged from active duty under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-13 for 



personality disorder on 6 May 2007.  He had completed 11 months and 26 days of Net Active Service This Period.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that he refused to sign his name in block 21.

12.  The unsigned attachment from the Assessment and Psychotherapy Center of the Monterey Peninsula dated 12 July 2007 states, in effect, that the applicant had served four years in the Army as a Morse Code Interpreter.  He left the Army temporarily then returned one year later with plans to make the military a career. 
He attended the Defense Language Institute (DLI) in order to complete the 
necessary training to become a Spanish interpreter.  On 17 January 2007, the applicant was evaluated at the DLI Health Clinic for excessive stress experienced in connection with the Spanish language class.  The technician noted gastrointestinal complaints and recommended ruling out both generalized anxiety and learning disorder.  The technician's report and recommendation was endorsed by a Licensed Psychologist.  The treatment records were unclear; however, the applicant was seen for behavior therapy by two Licensed Psychologists.

13.  The assessment continues, in effect, that on 24 January 2007, the applicant was reportedly administered the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, Second Edition.  The computer analysis recommended that clinician(s) rule out the possible diagnoses:  Axis I:  309.3 Adjustment Disorder with Disturbance of conduct; 297.1 Delusional Disorder; 298.9 Psychotic Disorder Not Otherwise Specified; and Axis II: 301.0 Paranoid Personality Disorder; and 301.9 Personality Disorder Not otherwise Specified.  The designation "Rule Out" meant that each of the potential diagnoses were only hypothetical.  There were insufficient evidence to support any one diagnosis, and further investigation was necessary in order to determine whether each was either justified or unjustified by the totality of supporting data.  Behavioral or cognitive-behavioral interventions are recommended.  The assessment further addressed the applicant's various test and evaluation results and then summarized that the applicant's evaluation was insufficient, internally contradictory, unethical, and slanted towards separation.

14.  The emailed messages that were submitted contained a referenced letter that attests to the applicant's character as a Soldier while serving in Bad Aibling Station, Germany.  It also contained evidence that the applicant's medical records had been requested repeatedly by the civilian psychologist for review.



15.  A Statement for Enlistment, United States Army Enlistment Program contractual obligation for enlisted Soldiers shows that the applicant was obligated to become qualified in MOS 98X (EW/SIGNET Special [Linguist] before he could receive his enlistment bonus.

16.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) 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 under Army Regulation 635-40, that 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 Soldiers ability to perform duty.  The regulation also directs that commanders will not take action prescribed in this chapter in lieu of disciplinary action, requires that the diagnosis concludes the disorder is so severe that the Soldier’s ability to function in the military environment is significantly impaired, and states that separation for personality disorder is not appropriate when separation is warranted under chapter 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, or 15; Army regulation 604-10; or Army Regulation 635-40.

17.  Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 3–35, states that a history of, or current manifestations of, personality disorders, disorders of impulse control not elsewhere classified, transvestism, voyeurism, other paraphilias, or factitious disorders, psychosexual conditions, transsexual, gender identity disorder to include major abnormalities or defects of the genitalia such as change of sex or a current attempt to change sex, hermaphroditism, pseudohermaphroditism, or pure gonadal dysgenesis or dysfunctional residuals from surgical correction of these conditions render an individual administratively unfit rather than unfit because of physical illness or medical disability.  These conditions will be dealt with through administrative channels, including AR 135–175, AR 135–178, 
AR 635–200, or AR 600–8–24.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The question posed to the Board is whether the applicant should have been processed for discharge for unsatisfactory performance or misconduct instead of personality disorder.




2.  In this regard, counsel contends that the applicant’s 4 years of prior active service was not taken into consideration, and the diagnoses made by the Army psychiatrists were faulty and dishonest.

3.  In considering counsel’s contentions, it is first noted that an Army psychiatrist recommended that the applicant be separated for having a personality disorder.  The civilian assessment provided by counsel is made by a psychologist, not a psychiatrist.  As such, the recommendation by a psychiatrist, a medical doctor, must be given more weight than the contentions made by a psychologist, who is not a medical doctor.  

4.  The civilian psychologist focuses primarily on the appropriateness and accuracy of diagnoses made by Army psychiatrists.  However, it would appear that the questions raised by the civilian psychologist were based, primarily, on the lack of complete medical records for the civilian psychologist to review.  The civilian psychologist also questions why the Army psychiatrists didn’t take into consideration the applicant’s 4 years of prior active service and his desire to make the military a career.

5.  The record of the applicant’s behavior clearly illustrates that he was acting in an unacceptable manner.  When the Army psychiatrist failed to diagnose the applicant with a psychiatric illness, it would be reasonable for the Army psychiatrist to begin exploring the possibility that the applicant had a personality disorder.

6.  Counsel appears to take license in his interpretation of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13.  The paragraph states, in pertinent part, that “ . . . separation for personality disorder is not appropriate when separation is warranted under [other provisions of this regulation].  The paragraph does not state that separation under this paragraph is a last resort.  While the applicant’s behavior may have eventually led to separation proceedings being initiated for unsatisfactory performance or misconduct, when a psychiatrist, a medical doctor, recommended that the applicant be separated for personality disorder, it would be reasonable and prudent for a commander, who is not a medical doctor, to accept that recommendation.  Only a severe act of misconduct would warrant the initiation of separation action for reasons other than personality disorder at that point.

7.  While the applicant had 4 years of prior active service, that does not in any way indicate the diagnosis of personality disorder was inappropriate.  A personality disorder may remain in remission until such time that something occurs to the individual which would trigger the personality disorder to manifest its symptoms.  In the applicant’s case, he was attending a very high stress school, DLI when his symptoms surfaced.

8.  Since neither the applicant nor counsel has submitted any argument nor evidence which would show the diagnosis of personality disorder was improper or unjust, there is no basis for changing the reason for the applicant’s discharge.

9.  Since there is no basis for changing the applicant’s reason for separation, there is no basis for considering paying him his full reenlistment bonus.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__MKP__  __SVW__  __JCR __  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.




____M. K. Patterson_____
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20080221
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.