IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	        21 AUGUST 2008

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080009709 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that the narrative reason for separation reflected on her DD Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) be changed from "Condition, Not a disability" to "Disability."

2.  The applicant states that she was discharged for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which has since been adjudicated as service-connected by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

3.  The applicant provides in support of her application, a copy of a letter from this agency dated 26 September 2007, requesting that she forward a copy of her Army medical records for review; a copy of her Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214); a copy of her VA Rating Decision dated 6 April 2007; and a copy of her VA Regional Office Psychological Evaluation Note dated 1 March 2007.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 27 June 2003, the applicant enlisted in the Wisconsin, Army National Guard (WIARNG), for 8 years, in the pay grade of E-1.  She successfully completed her training as a wheeled vehicle mechanic.

2.  On 17 May 2006, Orders 137-340 was published ordering the applicant to active duty effective 14 June 2006, in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.


3.  The applicant was in the process of applying for a hardship discharge when she underwent a mental status evaluation on 28 October 2006.  The attending psychologist noted that the applicant's behavior was normal; that she was fully alert; that she was fully oriented; that her mood was anxious; that her thinking process was clear; and that her thought content was clear.  The psychologist's impression was that the applicant has the mental capacity to understand and to participate in board proceedings; that she was mentally responsible; and that she met the retention requirement of Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3 (Does not have an unfitting diagnosis that would require medical evaluation Board.)  

4.  In the remarks section of the Report of Mental Status Evaluation, the attending psychologist noted the applicant was evaluated by mental health service on 14 October 2006, and that at the time, she exhibited significant anxiety and depression symptoms that caused increased distress and interfered with her ability to effectively complete her mission as assigned; that since the time of her last evaluation, she had been removed from her duties and had been placed in a less stressful environment and had undergone intensive treatment consisting of medication management and almost daily therapy.  The psychologist stated that despite treatment the applicant had shown only minimal improvements and continued to exhibit symptoms which continued to negatively effect her functioning as a military Soldier.  The psychologist stated that in light of the applicant's mental health issues and family concerns, it was in her best interest, as well as the best interest of the military, that an expeditious discharge be pursued.  The psychologist stated that the applicant may have qualified for a hardship discharge and that she had a diagnoses of anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified, which also met the criteria for a separation under other medical and mental health condition, in accordance with Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 5-17.  The psychologist stated that the applicant's condition and problems were enough to significantly impair her ability to function efficiently in the military environment.  The psychologist stated that the applicant was not considered to be suicidal or homicidal and that there was no evidence of an altered thought process.

5.  On 29 October 2006, the applicant's psychologist submitted a recommendation to the commander recommending that the applicant be discharged from the military under general conditions.  The psychologist stated that the applicant was unfit for military duty due to a psychiatric condition and that she was diagnosed with PTSD, chronic and severe, and that the diagnosis was based on reported childhood and adolescent history as reported by the applicant as well as being observed by the psychologist for over a 2-week period.  The psychologist stated that the applicant's diagnosis of PTSD had also been documented by a psychiatrist for the combat stress team on 13 October 2006 
and that her condition of PTSD had been exacerbated as a result of stressful and high risk conditions with her being in the theater of operations.  The psychologist stated that the applicant's reported home front issues contributed to her stress level and aggravated her reported symptoms and that the recommendation required priority attention due to the high potential of further deterioration of the applicant's conditions.

6.  In a request for Personnel Action, dated 1 November 2006, the applicant's commander stated that the applicant had requested early separation from the United States Army for the Convenience of the Government in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-17, and that she was not under any charges; not under suspension of favorable personnel action; and not under a bar to reenlistment.

7.  On 1 November 2006, the applicant was notified that she was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-17 for PTSD.  The commander based his recommendation on the applicant's unfitness for duty due to a psychiatric condition (PTSD).  The commander recommended that she receive an honorable characterization of service.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification on 4 November 2006.

8.  In a memorandum dated 7 November 2006, the applicant's psychologist forwarded a memorandum to her company commander describing her illness and diagnosis of PTSD.  He stated that the applicant's condition had deteriorated dramatically as a result of a change to her duty assignment, the stress would continue to dramatically aggravate her PTSD symptoms and condition.  The psychologist stated that the applicant was to be considered to be high risk for her own safety as well as for the safety of others and that necessary precautions was recommended.  The Personnel Action was subsequently forwarded from the applicant's company commander to the brigade commander.

9.  On 10 December 2006, the applicant's company commander was notified that her recommendation for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, chapter 5-17, was disapproved.  She was command directed to mental health for a 30-day reevaluation on 12 December 2006.

10.  On 12 December 2006, the applicant's psychologist forwarded a memorandum to her company commander recommending that she be placed on 24 hour "buddy" watch and that she continue to have her bolt removed from her weapon.  The psychologist stated that the applicant was unfit for duty due to the safety risk which she presented to herself and others.

11.  The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's release from active duty (REFRAD) are not present in the available record.  The DD Form 214 that she was furnished shows that she was honorably REFRAD on 30 January 2007, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-17, for condition, not a disability and she was transferred to the WIARNG.  She was assigned a separation code of “JFV” - "Condition, Not a Disability."

12.  The applicant's Report of Separation and Record of Service (NGB Form 22) shows that she was honorably discharged from the WIARNG on 30 January 2007, under the provisions of National Guard Regulation 600-200, chapter 8-36p, as a result of discharge from the Reserve of the Army.

13.  The Psychological Evaluation Note that the applicant submitted in behalf of her application, dated 1 March 2007, shows that the applicant's PTSD resulted from childhood physical and sexual abuse within her family and from physical abuse by her ex-boyfriend.  The Psychological Evaluation Note provides the rational for her PTSD diagnosis; describes the severity of her diagnosed conditions; and provides information regarding severity of her overall inability to function.

14.  The VA Rating Decision that the applicant submitted in support of her application is dated 6 April 2007 and it shows that she has been rated at 50 percent service-connected, Gulf War incurred, disability rating for PTSD.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5-17 provides for separation due to other designated physical or mental conditions.  It states, in pertinent part, that commanders may approve separation under this paragraph on the basis of other physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability and excluding conditions appropriate for separation processing under paragraph 5-11 or 5-13 that potentially interfere with assignment to or performance of duty.  When a commander determines that a Soldier has a physical or mental condition that potentially interferes with assignment to or performance of duty, the commander will refer the soldier for a medical examination and/or mental status evaluation in accordance with 
AR 40-501.  Command-directed mental status evaluations will comply with paragraph 1-32e.  A recommendation for separation must be supported by documentation confirming the existence of the physical or mental condition.

16.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 is the authority for Separation Program Designator Codes.  It states that when an individual is assigned a “JFV” separation code, his/her narrative reason for separation will read "Condition, Not a Disability."

17.  Army Regulation 635-5 serves as the authority for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  It provides, in pertinent part, that the DD Form 214 will be prepared to reflect an individual's service as it exists on the date of REFRAD or discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although the applicant was determined by her psychologist to be unfit for military duty, the psychologist also determined that she did not have any medically unfitting disability which required physical disability processing.  Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability retirement or separation.

2.  The applicant's contention and the documentation that she submitted in support of her application have been noted.  However, the fact that she has been awarded a 50 percent service-connected disability rating by the VA is not a sufficient justification to change her narrative reason for separation.  

3.  The applicant requested, and her psychologist recommended, that she be separated from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-17, for a condition, not a disability, which ultimately occurred.  She had been diagnosed with PTSD; however, her condition did not require her to be processed for separation through medical channels.  Therefore, the narrative reason for separation currently reflected on her DD Form 214 appears to be correct as reflected.

4.  The applicant's DD Form 214 was prepared to reflect her service as it existed at the time of her separation.  At the time of her separation a determination was made that she should be discharged due to a condition, not a disability.  This information is properly reflected on her DD Form 214.

5.  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.

6.  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

__XXX __  __XXX__  __XXX__   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.



      ___        XXX                ___
                CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080009709



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080009709



6


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1