IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  25 February 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090014080 


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 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to show he received a medical discharge.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that in December 2006 he was diagnosed with an anti-social personality disorder and depression.  He indicates that from that time through 1 May 2008, his first sergeant (1SG) worked with him to keep his mind clear and to do all he could to help him.  However, on 1 May 2008, his 1SG was replaced by a new 1SG who, after reviewing his medical documentation, did not believe the documentation.  The applicant indicates the new 1SG made things worse for him and gave him an Article 15 for missing morning formation when he was having a blackout.  Ultimately he was discharged based on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), major depression, serious memory loss, blackouts over anxiety, and stress.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 and multiple medical treatment record documents in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s military record shows he initially enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 22 May 2003.  He was trained in, awarded, and served in military occupational specialty 13B (Cannon Crewmember).

2.  The applicant's record contains five formal counseling statements issued between 29 January and 2 March 2009.  These statements show the applicant was counseled on five separate occasions for a myriad of infractions that included failure to report to duty on three separate occasions, threatening a noncommissioned officer (NCO), poor duty performance, misconduct, and possible elimination action for misconduct.  He was further counseled concerning separation under the provisions of paragraph 5-17, Army Regulation 635-200, following a mental status evaluation in February 2009.  

3.  On 17 February 2009, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation that showed his behavior and thought content were normal, that he was fully alert and oriented, that he had an anxious mood, that his thinking process was clear, and that his memory was good.  The examiner also determined the applicant was mentally responsible and met retention requirements.  He also had the mental capacity to understand and participate in separation proceedings, and he had no psychiatric disease or defect that warranted processing through medical channels.

4.  The examining psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant “AXIS I:  Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety” and AXIS II:  Deferred.  He also indicated that the applicant had been screened for PTSD and traumatic brain injury (TBI) and that no evidence of these conditions were found.  The psychiatrist further recommended the applicant be administratively separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-17, Army Regulation 635-200.  

5.  On 1 April 2009, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice for leaving his appointed place of duty without proper authority on 28 January 2009; for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time on the following three separate occasions:  29 January, 7 February, and 10 February 2009; and for wrongfully communicating a threat towards a noncommissioned officer (NCO) on 
28 January 2009.  

6.  On 29 April 2009, the unit commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of paragraph 5-17, 
Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of “other designated physical and mental conditions.”  He cited the applicant’s mental status evaluation diagnosis as the basis for the separation action and recommended he receive an honorable discharge.


7.  On 29 April 2009, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation notification and completed an election of rights in which he acknowledged he had been afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separate action for other designated physical and mental conditions, its effects, the rights available to him, and the effect of any action taken by him to waive his rights.  He elected to waive consideration of his case and a personal appearance before an administrative board.  He also declined representation by counsel, and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

8.  On an unknown date, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of paragraph 5-17, Army Regulation 635-200, and directed that the applicant receive an honorable discharge.  On 31 May 2009, the applicant was discharged accordingly.

9.  The applicant's DD Form 214 confirms he was separated in the rank of private first class/E-3 after completing a total of 6 years and 9 days of active military service.  Item 25 (Separation Authority) shows the authority for his separation was paragraph 5-17, Army Regulation 635-200 and item 28 lists the reason for his separation as "condition, not a disability."  

10.  The applicant provides multiple medical treatment documents that outline medical treatment he received on active duty.  These documents provide no evidence that he suffered from a disqualifying physical or mental condition that required him to be processed through medical channels at the time of discharge. 

11.   Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) provides the Army's enlisted personnel separation policy.  Paragraph 5-17 provides for separating members for physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability, which includes those members suffering from a disorder manifesting disturbances of perception, thinking, emotional control or behavior sufficiently severe that the Soldier's ability to effectively perform military duties is significantly impaired.

12.  Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) provides, in pertinent part, the medical fitness standards for retention and separation, including retirement.  Paragraph 3-36 (Adjustment disorders) states that situational maladjustments due to acute or chronic situational stress do not render an individual unfit because of physical disability, but may be the basis for administrative separation if recurrent and causing interference with military duty.


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his DD Form 214 should be changed to show he was separated due to a medical disability for PTSD was carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  The only condition the applicant was diagnosed with while on active duty was adjustment disorder.  In accordance with regulatory guidance, adjustment disorders do not render an individual unfit because of physical disability but may be the basis for administrative separation.

3.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant's 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.  

4.  There is no evidence available to indicate he was suffering from PTSD at the time of discharge.  In fact, the applicant was screened for PTSD and TBI and there was no evidence of either these conditions was found.  Further, the applicant's record and the independent evidence he provided fails to show he suffered from a physically or mentally disqualifying that supported his separation processing through the PDES at the time of discharge.  As a result, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief. 

5.  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)                                         AR20090014080



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090014080



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1