IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  10 August 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100000831 


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 the narrative reason for separation shown on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

2.  She states, in effect, she was molested while serving in Iraq in 2003.  She further states this event caused her to develop Military Sexual Trauma (MST) which was later diagnosed as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD).

3.  The applicant did not provide any documentary evidence.

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.  The applicant's records show she enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 March 2002 and held military occupational specialty 92G (Food Service Specialist).  The highest rank/pay grade she attained during her military service was private first class (PFC)/E-3.  She was assigned to the 82nd Medical Company (Air Ambulance), 937th Engineer Group, Fort Riley, Kansas.

3.  On 7 January 2004, she was diagnosed with sleepwalking and in order to rule out a mood disorder not otherwise specified, she was issued a temporary physical profile limiting her to assignments with access to regular outpatient care and duty hours from 0600 to 1630.  This profile also restricted her from access to weapons or performing 24 hour duty.

4.  On 26 January 2004, she was enrolled in an Anger Management program with the Center for Mental Health Services at Fort Riley and scheduled to attend six group therapy sessions during the period 25 February through 31 March 2004. 

5.  On 5 February 2004, she underwent a mental status evaluation at her commander's request.  The military psychologist remarked that her behavior was normal, she was fully alert and oriented with a clear thinking process and normal thought content.

	a.  The psychologist informed her that the evaluation suggested interpersonal difficulties associated with a personality disorder and sleep walking behavior.  When questioned about her performance she indicated she had been late and had presented an unkempt uniform, but otherwise denied work performance difficulties.

	b.  The psychologist opined she met the criteria for Personality Disorder with Schizoid and Paranoid features; therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Army Regulation 625-200 (Enlisted Separations) her unit should consider an administrative separation under chapter 5-13, as it was likely she would continue to present with emotional and behavioral difficulties that reflect a long-standing pattern of difficulties.

6.  She was placed on medical hold pending resolution of her temporary profile with a follow on deployment to Iraq with the 82nd Medical Company.  On 5 and 29 March 2004, she was counseled by the Rear Detachment Noncommissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC) regarding her performance and frequent daydreaming and lack of situational awareness.  Her NCOIC also noted she was currently enrolled in Anger Management counseling and had been evaluated by the Community Mental Health Clinic regarding her lack of focus, forgetfulness, and general lack of awareness.  During each counseling session, she was advised that if her deficiencies continued it could result in her administrative separation from the Army.

7.  On 11 March 2004, she underwent another mental status evaluation as part of pre-separation processing.  The military psychologist remarked that her behavior was normal, she was fully alert and oriented with a clear thinking process and normal thought content.

	a.  The psychologist noted she was currently attending Anger Management, but continued to report emotional difficulties in controlling outbursts and had the potential to be self-destructive.

	b.  The psychologist opined she met the criteria for Personality Disorder with Schizoid and Paranoid features, therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Army Regulation 625-200 her unit should consider an administrative separation under chapter 5-13, as it was likely she would continue to present with emotional and behavioral difficulties that reflect a long-standing pattern of difficulties.

	c.  The psychologist opined she possessed the capacity to participate in the process of separation and recommended she be administratively eliminated from the military as expeditiously as possible.

8.  Her immediate commander notified her of his intent to initiate separation action against her under the provisions of paragraph 5-13 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of personality disorder with an honorable discharge.

9.  On 6 April 2004, she acknowledged receipt of the notification of her pending separation action and she was subsequently advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to separate her for a personality disorder under the provisions of paragraph 5-13 of Army Regulation 635-200.  She elected not to submit a statement. 

10.  On 15 April 2004, her immediate commander initiated separation action against her under the provisions of paragraph 5-13 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of mental disorder.  The commander remarked that she was diagnosed with a personality disorder with schizoid and paranoid features which significantly impaired her capacity to adapt to and function in a military environment.  

11.  The separation authority approved the proposed separation action against the applicant in accordance with paragraph 5-13 of Army Regulation 635-200 and directed she be issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

12.  On 23 April 2004, she was discharged accordingly.  Her DD Form 214 shows she completed 2 years, 1 month, and 5 days of creditable active service during this period.  The form also contains the following entries:

* item 25 (Separation Authority) shows the entry "Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13"
* item 26 (Separation Code) shows the entry "JFX"
* item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) shows the entry "PERSONALITY DISORDER"

13.  Although her DD Form 214 shows she served in Kuwait from 16 February 2003 to 1 June 2003, her record is void of any evidence and she did not provide any evidence that she experienced a traumatic event in Iraq.

14.  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 under Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), that 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 duty.

15.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) states that the SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations, which identify reasons for, and types of separation from active duty.  The "JFX" SPD code is the correct code for members separating under the provisions of paragraph 5-13 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of personality disorder.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that her narrative reason for separation should be corrected.

2.  The evidence of record shows that in spite of participating in Anger Management sessions, she continued to report emotional difficulties in controlling outbursts and had the potential to be self-destructive.

3.  Evidence also shows she underwent mental status evaluations and the psychologist opined she met the criteria for Personality Disorder with Schizoid and Paranoid features and it was likely she would continue to present with emotional and behavioral difficulties that reflect a long-standing pattern of difficulties.  Accordingly, she was separated in accordance with the provisions of chapter 5-13 of Army Regulation 625-200.

4.  The evidence of record shows her separation action was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations and there is no indication of procedural errors that would have jeopardized her rights.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and the character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.  

5.  The applicant's narrative reason for separation was assigned based on the fact that she was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 5-13 of Army Regulation 635-200 for a personality disorder.  Absent this condition, there was no fundamental reason to process her for a discharge.  The only valid narrative reason for separation permitted under this paragraph and its corresponding SPD code is "Personality Disorder."  Therefore, she received the appropriate narrative reason for separation.

6.  There is no evidence in the available records nor did the applicant provide any evidence that she experienced a traumatic event in Iraq or any other reason to substantiate a removal of or a change to her narrative reason for separation.  

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)                                         AR20100000831





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100000831



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1