IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  28 August 2008

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080011186 


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, in effect, that Item 26 (Separation Code) and Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of his separation document (DD Form 214) be corrected.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) determined that he suffers from a Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which is a service connected disability, and not a personality disorder.  He also states that he is unjustly being forced to pay back his reenlistment bonus and denied severance pay.

3.  The applicant indicates in his application that he is providing the following documents in support of his application:  Self-Authored Letter; Library of Congress Internet Search Result Documents; Medical Record Document Extracts; VA Award Letter; however, these documents were not with the application when it was received for Board processing.  

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 2 April 1999.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 25B (Information Systems Operator Analyst), and the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was specialist (SPC).  


2.  The applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) contains three Developmental Counseling Forms (DA Forms 4856), dated 4, 9, and 13 January 2006.  These documents show that the applicant was counseled for his failure to repair, lack of discipline and respect, blatant misconduct, failure to follow a lawful order, and regarding possible punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and separation action.  

3.  On 13 January 2006, the unit commander referred the applicant for a mental health evaluation.  He cited the applicant’s recent abnormal behavior, numerous offenses of disrespect, and his failure to obey lawful orders from noncommissioned officers (NCOs) and commissioned officers, and his withdrawn and tired appearance as the basis for the referral.  

4.  On 16 January 2006, the applicant underwent a mental health evaluation.  The examining psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant with Antisocial Personality Disorder, and indicated that the applicant's long standing history of maladaptive behavior would not improve with counseling or extra instruction, but would result in continual disciplinary problems.  He also indicated that the applicant was considered to be potentially dangerous due to homicidal ideation, although able to control his thoughts at the time.  The examining psychiatrist further indicated that the applicant did not have a mental disorder and he was not considered mentally disabled.  However, he manifests long standing disorder of character, behavior, and adaptability that is of such severity as to preclude adequate military service.  He also indicated the applicant was no longer suitable for continued access to classified material and recommended his TOP Secret/SCI security clearances be rescinded.  He finally recommended the applicant’s expeditious administrative separation under the provisions of Paragraph 5-13, Army Regulation 635-200, based on his personality disorder.

5.  On 25 January 2006, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ for being disrespectful in language towards a NCO; disobeying lawful orders on four separate occasions; and for failing to go at the prescribed time to his appointed place of duty.  The resultant punishment was a reduction to private first class (PFC), forfeiture of $394.00 (suspended), and 14 days of extra duty.  

6.  After notifying the applicant, the unit commander recommended the applicant be separated under the provisions of Paragraph 5-13, Army Regulation 635-200, based on his diagnosed personality disorder.  The separation authority approved the applicant’s separation under the provisions of paragraph 5-13, Army Regulation 635-200, due to a personality disorder, and directed that the applicant receive an honorable discharge.  On 28 March 2006, the applicant was discharged accordingly.
7.  The DD Form 214 issued the applicant upon his discharge identifies the reason and authority for the applicant's separation.  Item 25 confirms that the applicant was separated under the provisions of Paragraph 5-13, 
Army Regulation 635-200; Item 26 lists the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code JFX; and Item 28 shows the narrative reason for his separation as "Personality Disorder".  Item 18 (Remarks) includes an entry which indicates the applicant was entitled to $7021.80 separation pay.  The applicant authenticated this document with his signature on the date of his separation.  

8.  On 11 September 2007, the Acting Director, Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) confirmed the applicant was entitled to separation pay as indicated on his DD Form 214 and that he was no longer indebted to the government.  The DFAS official further indicated that the applicant would be issued a check within 30 days. 

9.  On 21 December 2007, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered the applicant's request for a change to the authority and reason of his discharge.  After a careful review of the applicant's entire military record, and all other available evidence, the ADRB determined that the reason for the applicant's discharge was both proper and equitable, and it voted to deny his request for a change in the character and/or reason of his discharge.  

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 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, which 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 
Soldier’s ability to perform his duties (Exceptions: combat exhaustion and other acute situational maladjustments.)  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 DOD components.  It is described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV) of Mental Disorders, 4th edition.

11.  PTSD, an anxiety disorder, was recognized as a psychiatric disorder in 1980 with the publishing of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).  The condition is described in the current DSM-IV, pages 424 through 429.  The Army used established standards and procedures for determining fitness for entrance and retention and utilized those procedures and standards in evaluating the applicant at the time of his discharge.  The specific diagnostic label given to an individual’s condition after his discharge from the service may change, but any change does not call into question the application of then existing fitness standards.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contention that Items 26 and 28 of his DD Form 214 should be corrected has been carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.  

2.  By regulation, members may be separated under the provisions of Paragraph 5-13, Army Regulation 635-200, if they suffer from a personality disorder, not amounting to disability, which interferes with assignment to or performance of duty.  The regulation requires that a personality disorder be diagnosed by a Psychiatrist or Doctoral Clinical Psychologist with necessary and appropriate professional credentials, who are privileged to conduct mental health evaluations for the Department of Defense components.  

3.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was properly evaluated and diagnosed with a personality disorder by Psychiatrist of the Army Medical Corps, with the appropriate professional credentials, who as a result of his evaluation, concluded the applicant's condition was a long standing disorder of character, behavior, and adaptability that is of such severity as to preclude adequate military service.  

4.  Although the VA rating decision document was not included with the application that arrived for Board review, the applicant's contention that the VA has determined he suffers from a service connected PTSD was also considered. However, the record clearly shows the applicant was diagnosed with a personality disordered by a credentialed Psychiatrist during his separation processing, and that this was the basis for his separation.  The Army used established standards and procedures in evaluating the applicant at the time of his discharge.  Even if the VA has now concluded the applicant suffers from a PTSD, the specific diagnostic label given to an individual’s condition after his discharge from the service does not call into question the application of the existing fitness standards used during the applicant's discharge processing.  As a result, this does not provide a basis for a change to the authority and reason for the applicant's discharge. 

5.  The evidence of record further confirms that the applicant's separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the applicant’s rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  As a result, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief at this time. 

6.  The evidence also shows that DFAS has confirmed the applicant's entitlement to severance pay and has canceled the applicant's debt to the Government.  As a result, no further action is necessary on this matter.  

7.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, 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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___x____  ___x____  ___x____  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.




      _______ x_   _______   ___
               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)                                         AR20080011186



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080011186



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1