RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  1 April 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070016821 


	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. Michael J. Fowler

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Lester Echols

Chairperson

Mr. Joe R. Schroeder

Member

Mr. Larry W. Racster

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 the narrative reason for separation be changed on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) with the period ending 27 February 1980.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, the narrative reason for separation on the above DD Form 214 is in error.  The original DD Form 214 he received did not show personality disorder when he was discharged.  The applicant states he would never have accepted this separation under these unknown and unjust terms. 

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

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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 August 1976 and successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training.  He was awarded military occupational specialty 82C (Field Artillery Surveyor).  

3.  On 9 June 1977, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for disobeying a lawful order.

4.  On 21 September 1977, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for not being at his appointed place of duty.

5.  The applicant was honorably discharged on 26 February 1979 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment on 27 February 1979.



6.  On 21 January 1980, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for not being at his appointed place of duty.

7.  The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on an unknown date by a military medical psychiatrist who diagnosed the applicant with an explosive personality, severe.  The military medical psychiatrist determined that he could distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right, that there were no disqualifying mental or physical defects sufficient to warrant disposition through medical channels, and that the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.  

8.  The military medical psychiatrist stated that "This 20 yo EM's behavior pattern is characterized by gross outbursts of rage expressed by verbal and physical aggressiveness.  These outbursts are strikingly different from SM's usual behavior and later regretful and repentant for them.  EM has a history of disciplinary action taken as a result of explosive behavior done impulsively."

9.  The psychiatrist continued that the applicant was generally excitable, aggressive, and tended to over-respond to environmental pressures.  His outbursts were typical of an intense nature and committed upon impulse and he was unable to control them.  It can be expected that under normal military pressures the applicant's behavior and outbursts would continue with possibilities of increased frequency.  He had potential for violence due to the stress of the military and the added stress of his personal life.  The psychiatrist strongly recommended that the applicant be separated under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200.

10.  On 25 January 1980, the applicant’s commander signed an elimination packet and a waiver of rehabilitative transfer on the applicant for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsuitability.  The reason cited by the commander was the applicant had a history of personality disorders as evidenced in his psychiatric evaluation.  The commander further indicated that the applicant had repetitive counselings and punishments under Article 15 on three different occasions.  The applicant had worked under four different section leaders and three different battery commanders. 

11.  On 30 January 1980, the applicant was advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action.  The applicant was advised of the impact of the discharge action.  The applicant signed a statement indicating that he was advised he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200.  The applicant declined to submit a statement on his own behalf.

12.  On 15 February 1980, the appropriate authority approved the elimination packet and waiver of the rehabilitative transfer recommendation and directed the applicant receive an honorable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsuitability.  On 27 February 1980, the applicant separated from the service after completing 3 years, 6 months, and 
8 days of creditable active service.  Item 21 (Signature of Member Being Separated) of the applicant's DD Form 214 with the period ending 27 February 1980 shows he authenticated the DD Form 214 with his signature.  Item 
28 (Narrative and Reason for Separation) shows the entry "Unsuitability – personality disorder."  

13.  On 8 June 1987, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered the applicant’s request to change the reason of his discharge.  The ADRB unanimously determined that the reason for his discharge was proper.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of the regulation effect at the time provided, in pertinent part, that a member could be separated when it is determined that he or she is unqualified for further military service because of unsuitability performance.  Commanders will separate a Soldier for unsuitability when it is clearly established that, in the commander’s judgment, the Soldier will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his narrative reason for separation on his DD Form 214 is in error.  However, evidence shows the applicant's DD Form 
214 was authenticated at the time of his discharge with his signature.  In effect, his signature was his verification that the information contained on the separation document to include his narrative reason for separation was correct at the time the document was prepared and issued.

2.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 13-4b of Army Regulation 635-200 for unsuitability due to personality disorder.  He was diagnosed with a personality disorder by a competent military medical authority.  Based on this diagnosis, his 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.  


3.  Based on the diagnosis by a competent military medical authority paragraph 13-4b (Personality Disorder) of Army Regulation 635-200 was the proper authority for the applicant’s separation.  The applicant's narrative reason for separation is correct and was applied in accordance with the applicable regulations.  Therefore, the separation authority on his DD Form 214 is correct.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__LE   __  ___JRS__  ___LWR_  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.




___Lester Echols_             _
          CHAIRPERSON