IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	        21 OCTOBER 2008

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080013016 


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 her narrative reason for separation be changed from personality disorder to post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

2.  The applicant states that her PTSD was caused by her “S/C PTSD” which was caused by military sexual trauma.  She states that she was sexually assaulted while she was on active duty and that the narrative reason for separation currently reflected on her Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) is causing great difficulties in her ability to gain employment.  She states that she does not have a personality disorder, she has PTSD from military sexual trauma.

3.  The applicant provides in support of her application, a copy of her Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision, dated 2 June 2008.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 6 July 2004, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army in Shreveport, Louisiana, for 4 years, in the pay grade of E-3.  She successfully completed her training as a military police.

2.  Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was initiated against the applicant on 3 November 2005, for failure to obey lawful orders by having a prohibited relationship with an inmate’s wife; by not reporting known violation of the United States Disciplinary Barracks Regulation; and by wrongfully influencing the testimony of a witness by discussing the case and testimonies given to the investigating officer.  Her punishment consisted of a reduction in pay grade (suspended until 3 May 2006), an oral reprimand, restriction and extra duty.

3.  On 22 February 2006, the applicant was counseled for being involved in an underage drinking incident.  During the counseling she was reminded that she had already received NJP which included a 180 day suspension and a no drinking policy.  The information contained in the Developmental Counseling Form shows that during her suspension, she was involved in an unfavorable situation where alcohol consumption took place.  She was told that she was fully aware of her suspension and that she knew the consequences if she was caught violating her suspension.  She was reminded that at the time of the incident, NJP was not pursued because of the sincerity of the incident.  She was told that she may face unfavorable actions because she violated the command’s policy of underage drinking.

4.  On 27 February 2006, the applicant underwent a Mental Health Evaluation and she was diagnosed as having a personality disorder, not otherwise specified. The applicant was determined to be responsible for her action; to have the mental capacity to understand and to participate in proceedings; and to meet the medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501.  The psychiatrist stated that the applicant did not have a psychiatric illness that warranted disposition through medical channels or a Medical Evaluation Board.  The psychiatrist stated that she manifested a long-standing disorder of character, behavior and adaptability that was of such severity so as to preclude adequate military service; and that although she was not currently at risk for suicide or homicide, due to her lifelong patter of maladaptive responses to routine person and/or work-related stressors, she may become dangerous to herself or others in the future.  The psychiatrist recommended that she not have access to weapons and that she be processed for expeditious administrative discharge in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-13.

5.  As a result of the evaluation conducted by the psychiatrist, on 7 June 2006, the applicant was counseled concerning a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-13, due to her mental health evaluation.  She was informed of the type of discharge that she could receive and the effects of a less than honorable discharge.  The applicant acknowledged she understood the information that was discussed during her counseling. 

6.  On 19 June 2006, the applicant was notified that she was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-13, due to personality disorder.  The commander cited the applicant’s diagnosis of personality disorder as the basis for his recommendation.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification on 19 June 2006 and, after consulting with counsel, she waived her right to submit a statement in her own behalf.

7.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 19 June 2006, and directed that the applicant be separated with a honorable discharge.  Accordingly, on 27 June 2006, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-13, due to a personality disorder.  She had completed 1 year, 11 months and 22 days of net active service.

8.  The VA Rating Decision that the applicant submits in support of her application shows she was granted a 10 percent service connected disability rating for PTSD, effective 26 November 2007.  The VA Rating Decision references to a consult examination in January 2006, which makes reference to a sexual assault.  However, a review of the available records failed to include the document to which the VA refers.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5, paragraph 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for personality disorder, and provides, in pertinent part, that a soldier may be separated for personality disorder (not amounting to disability) that interferes with assignment to or performance of duty. The diagnosis of personality disorder must have been established by a physician trained in psychiatry and psychiatric diagnosis.  Separation because of personality disorder is authorized only if the diagnosis concludes that the disorder is so severe that the Soldier’s ability to function effectively in the military environment is significantly impaired.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize her rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant’s contentions and the VA Rating Decision have been considered.  However, there is no evidence in the available records, nor has she submitted any evidence to show that she was sexually assaulted while she was in the Army or that she was suffering from PTSD at the time of her discharge.  

4.  The VA Rating Decision references a consult examination in January 2006, which refers to a sexual assault.  However, this document is not in the available records.  The applicant’s records do show that she was diagnosed by a psychiatrist as having a personality disorder which is her narrative reason for separation.  

5.  The applicant’s contention that her narrative reason for separation has caused difficulties in obtaining employment is not a basis for granting relief in this case. Her records show that she was suffering from a personality disorder at the time of discharge, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that what the Army did in this case was correct.

6.  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.

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.




      _______ _ 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)                                         AR20080013016



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080013016



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1