IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	  4 March 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090014471 


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 correction of her military records to show that she was separated from the service for medical reasons.

2.  The applicant states that she was separated from the Army due to a personality disorder when she was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.

3.  The applicant provides, in support of her application, copies of her DD Form 214 (Certificate or Release or Discharge from Active Duty); Circuit Court documents related to her involuntary admission to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hospital; VA hospital progress notes; a VA hospital medical record report; a VA hospital conversation record; a memorandum referring her to 
Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri; a DD Form 1610 (Request and Authorization for Temporary Duty Travel); four Park City Police Department Incident Reports; two DA Forms 2166-7 (Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER)); a DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation); a DA Form 4856 (General Counseling Form); and a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action).

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.  On 8 August 1984, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  She completed her initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 75B (Personnel Administrative Specialist).  She was subsequently assigned to Fort Dix, New Jersey.

3.  On 18 December 1985, the applicant departed Fort Dix for her assignment in Europe.  She was assigned to the 79th Engineer Battalion.  She returned to the United States on or about 8 July 1987 and was assigned to Fort Knox, Kentucky.

4.  On 7 September 1987, the applicant was promoted to sergeant, pay 
grade E-5.

5.  On 20 February 1989, the applicant departed Fort Knox for the Republic of Korea and she was assigned to the 501st Military Intelligence Battalion.  On 
18 March 1990, she returned to the United States and was assigned to the U.S. Army Recruiting Battalion, Fort Sheridan, Illinois.

6.  The applicant's NCOER for the period from April 1990 through March 1991 reported that the applicant's competence, physical fitness, military bearing, leadership, training, responsibility and accountability were all successful or better.  Her overall performance and potential was rated in the "2" block.  The applicant's NCOER for the period from June through October 1991 shows her performance in all areas was rated successful and that her overall performance and potential were rated in the "3" and "4" blocks, respectively.

7.  In September and October 1991, the Park City Police Department responded to the following complaints:

	a.  on 3 September 1991, the applicant stated harassing phone calls had started 2 weeks earlier and that she felt she was being followed.

	b.  on 17 September 1991, the applicant stated that she felt her vehicle, residence, and work telephones had been tapped.  She still felt like she was always being followed.  She constantly found some of the air had been let out of her car tires and the console in her vehicle had been torn.  She was advised by the police to have her tires checked for leaks because they were near bald.  The console damage appeared to be due to wear.
	c.  on 21 September 1991, the applicant claimed that someone was messing with her car again.  She stated that unknown offenders broke into her car every other night and listened to the radio.  She stated that she watched them through her window and the offenders also stole her gas.  When asked why she had not called the police when the offenders were still in the car, she responded by stating that she liked watching them.  The reporting officer noticed that the applicant had a distant look in her eyes.

	d.  on 5 October 1991, the applicant showed the police officer a battery operated phone.  She complained that the battery pack was bugged.  The officer observed nothing.  The applicant also showed the officer her refrigerator and stated that the thermostat was bugged, and then she took the officer to her car and stated that the wires under the dash were bugs.

8.  On 7 October 1991, the applicant received a mental status evaluation.  The report of this evaluation stated that the applicant's behavior was suspicious.  She was fully alert and oriented but displayed an unstable mood.  Her thinking process was clear.  Her thought content was described as paranoid ideation.  Her memory was good.  The psychiatrist opined that the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and to participate in separation proceedings and she was mentally responsible.  The applicant was hostile, guarded, and suspicious.  She refused to answer questions and refused to be admitted for treatment despite attempts by the psychiatrist to help her understand this was in her best interest.  The applicant was unwilling to participate in a psychiatric interview; therefore, her evaluation was not thorough and complete.  Based on an earlier psychiatric determination that the applicant was suffering from a delusional disorder, as well as police reports, and his own abbreviated interview, the psychiatrist concluded that the applicant's behavior was consistent with a diagnosis of a minimally severe paranoid personality disorder that may reach the point to warrant a diagnosis of delusional disorder.  The psychiatrist recommended that the applicant be expeditiously discharged for a severe personality disorder.

9.  On 31 October 1991, the applicant's commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate her from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, for a personality disorder.  The commander stated that the reason for this action was her inability to function effectively in the military environment as evidenced by her mental status evaluation.

10.  On 9 November 1991, the applicant consulted with counsel.  She waived consideration of her case by an administrative separation board contingent upon receiving an honorable characterization of service.  She elected not to make a statement in her own behalf.

11.  On 14 November 1991, the commander recommended that the applicant be separated from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, due to a severe personality disorder with an honorable discharge.  The commander stated that attempts to counsel the applicant and to aid her in resolving problems had been unsuccessful because she denied there was a problem.  The applicant had insisted that she was under surveillance, that her phones were tapped, and that her car and residence were bugged.

12.  On 18 November 1991, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that she be issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

13.  Accordingly, she was discharged on 6 December 1991 with an honorable discharge.  She had completed 7 years, 3 months, and 26 days of creditable active service.

14.  On 16 December 1991, the applicant was admitted to the Jefferson Barracks VA Hospital based on a 96-hour commitment filed by her mother because of the applicant's increasing paranoia and bizarre delusions.

15.  On 18 December 1991, the VA medical staff observed that the applicant was actively hallucinating and responding to voices.

16.  On 19 December 1991, a psychologist reported that the applicant displayed negativism, poor social judgment, guardedness, and inability to document comprehension.  These features were consistent with a psychotic state.  On the Bender Gestalt test, the applicant was able to write her name but could not give the correct date.  She rotated most of the test designs and drew them in a very small manner.  She could recognize these errors but would not accept a second trial even after an explanation that these errors often indicated the possibility of damage to the brain.  She repeatedly asked why the psychiatrist was seeing her.  Her speech was low and garbled.

17.  On 23 December 1991, the applicant was discharged with the following diagnosis:

	a.  Axis I:  Schizophreniform disorder;

	b.  Axis II: Deferred;

	c.  Axis III:  No diagnosis;

   d.  Axis IV:  No known stressors, except for discharge from Army 2 weeks earlier; and
   
	e.  Axis V:  Global assessment of functioning last year was 80, at time of discharge was 45.

18.  On 14 February 1992, the Jefferson County Circuit Court issued a warrant for the detention, evaluation and treatment of the applicant in the Jefferson Barracks VA Hospital.  The warrant was executed that same day.

19.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), as in effect at the time, provided the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-13 provided that a Soldier could be separated for personality disorder, not amounting to disability under Army Regulation 635-40, that interfered with assignment to or performance of duty.  The regulation required the condition to be a deeply ingrained maladaptive pattern of behavior of long duration that interfered with the Soldier's ability to perform duty.

20.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) provides, in pertinent part, that when a member is being separated by reason other than physical disability, his or her continued performance of assigned duty commensurate with his or her rank or grade until he or she is scheduled for separation or retirement creates a presumption that he or she is fit. This presumption can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that he or she was unable to perform his or her duties for a period of time or that acute grave illness or injury or other deterioration of physical condition, occurring immediately prior to or coincident with separation, rendered the member unfit.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that her narrative reason for discharge should be changed to show she was discharged for medical reasons.

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized her rights.

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

4.  The available evidence shows the applicant performed her duties in a satisfactory manner through October 1991.  There is no available evidence showing that her duty performance had subsequently deteriorated as a result of a medical condition that rendered her unfit.

5.  At the time of the applicant's discharge, she was diagnosed with a severe personality disorder that was not yet considered to be a disability.  It appears that after discharge her condition progressed, resulting in a diagnosis of schizophreniform disorder.

6.  While the progression of her condition was unfortunate, it is not a justifiable basis for changing the narrative reason for her discharge.

7.  In view of the above, the applicant's request should be denied.

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)                                         AR20090014471



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090014471



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1