IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  4 November 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100011883 


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 item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be changed from Personality Disorder to Disability (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)).  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, the narrative reason for his discharge should be changed based on his diagnosis of service connected PTSD from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 

3.  The applicant provides a copy of a Board of Veterans Appeals decision packet, dated 26 January 2010.

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 record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 3 July 1990.  He was trained in, awarded, and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 88M (Motor Transport Operator).   

3.  A DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was issued the Southwest Asia Service Medal with 3 bronze service stars and the Kuwait Liberation Medal.  The inclusive dates of his service in support of Operation Desert Storm are not in the available records. 

4.  A copy of a DA Form 3822-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 
27 August 1991, shows the applicant was given a full mental status evaluation by medical authorities at the division’s Community Mental Health Services.  He was found to have a dysphoric mood and a constricted affect.  He was oriented to person, place, and time, and his thought process and content were unremarkable.  No evidence of hallucinations or delusions was observed.  There were not any findings of memory problems or difficulty maintaining personal hygiene.  His diagnostic impression reflected the following:

* Axis I:  Adjustment Disorder with Disturbance of Mood and Conduct
* Axis II:  Schizoid Personality Disorder with Passive-Aggressive Features

5.  The mental status examination also indicated that the applicant had been given an evaluation on two other occasions.  The first examination occurred during his deployment in support of Operation Desert Storm.  He was diagnosed with an Adjustment Disorder and a Schizoid Personality Disorder.  Upon his redeployment, he received approximately six sessions of mental health treatment.  He showed no signs of improvement and in fact, his condition was noted to have worsened.  The clinical psychologist recommended an expeditious discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Separations), chapter 5-13 (Personality Disorder).

6.  On 17 September 1991, the unit commander notified the applicant he was considering separating him under the provisions of chapter 5-13, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of Personality Disorder.  

7.  On 20 September 1991, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, its effects, and of the rights available to him.  He waived his rights of a personal appearance before a board of officers and elected not to submit any statements.  

8.  On 24 September 1991, the separation authority approved the chain of command's recommendations to separate the applicant under chapter 5-13, Army Regulation 6235-200, with an Honorable Discharge Certificate.  

9.  On 3 October 1991, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant confirms he was separated under the provisions of chapter 5-13, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of Personality Disorder.  He had completed a total of 1 year, 3 months, and 1 day of creditable active military service and 4 months and 20 days of foreign service.  He had no lost time.  

10.  The applicant submits a copy of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision packet.  This packet shows the applicant was diagnosed with chronic PTSD and trichotillomania in October 2009.  The examiner acknowledged that his trichotillomania did arise from PTSD; however, he was uncertain to what extent.  He concluded both disorders occurred during the applicant's military service. 

11.  The VA board verified, through the U.S. Army and Joint Service Records Research Center (JSRRC), that the applicant’s unit was located in close proximity to the “highway of death” during his deployment in 1991.  The highway of death was independently recognized as a road where dead bodies and wrecked vehicles were strewn.  The board also acknowledged the applicant’s performance of duties on the “highway of death.”  The VA board determined the applicant met all the criteria for service connected PTSD.

12.  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.  This regulation 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.

13.  Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3 sets forth medical fitness standards for retention and separation.  Paragraph 3-35 provides for individuals with personality, sexual and gender identity, factitious disorders; disorders of impulse control not elsewhere classified; and substance-related disorders.  It states, in pertinent part, that these conditions may render an individual administratively unfit rather than unfit because of physical disability.  

14.  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.

15.  Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permits the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service.  The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned.  Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his DD Form 214 should be corrected to reflect he was discharged based on PTSD was carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.  

2.  The available records show that the applicant was discharged pursuant to medical findings from the clinical psychologist.  The mental status examination also indicated in the remarks block of the form that the applicant had been evaluated on three separate occasions and he also received approximately six sessions of mental health treatment.  Medical authorizes determined that his condition had worsened and recommended an expeditious discharge.  

3.  The veracity of the applicant's claim that he is now suffering from severe chronic PTSD is not in question.  However, PTSD was recognized as a psychiatric disorder in 1980.  The applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder in 1991 by competent medical officials.  At the time of his diagnosis, the medical authorities were privy to medical information pertaining to PTSD; however, in their professional opinions the applicant suffered from a personality disordered which required discharging him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-13.

4.  The specific diagnostic label given to an individual’s condition a decade or more after his discharge from the service may change, but any change does not call into question the application of existing fitness standards at the time.

5.  The fact that the VA found the applicant to have severe PTSD in October 2009 has no effect on the determination made by the Army at the time of his discharge.  The VA may award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service in accordance with its own policies and regulations.  The VA awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned.  

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)                                         AR20100011883



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100011883



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1