IN THE CASE OF:	 

		BOARD DATE:	  7 June 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100025267 


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.

2.  The applicant states:

* he was discharged for a "dissociative disorder"
* the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) made a gross error in determining his medical condition existed prior to service (EPTS)
* he admits to having minor problems prior to service, however his condition was greatly aggravated by his service
* it was an injustice not to be given the opportunity to speak on his own behalf at his hearing and to be discharged from the Army

3.  The applicant provides:

* VA Form 21-4138 (Statement in Support of Claim)
* DD Form 2808 (Report of Medical Examination)
* Federal Strategic Health Alliance Statement (3 pages)
* DD Form 2807-1 (Report Medical History)
* two Standard Forms 507 (Clinical Record)
* Viro Medical Laboratories Inc. results
* Quest Diagnostic Incorporated Lab Report
* DA Form 3947 (MEB Proceedings)
* Madigan Army Medical Center MEB Narrative Summary (NARSUM)
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's records in the integrated Personnel Management Records System (iPERMS) are incomplete; however, it shows he initially enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 25 August 1998, for a period of 8 years.   His chronological statement of retirement points and retirement points detail reveal no apparent extended active duty until 23 April 2007.

2.  On 23 April 2007, he entered active duty.  He was honorably released from active duty training by reason of completion of required active service on             9 September 2007.

3.  On 25 September 2007, the applicant was ordered to active duty for the purpose of "active duty medical extension" (although his retirement points detail indicates it was continuous active duty since 23 April 2007).

4.  A Madigan Army Medical Center, MEB NARSUM, dated 30 October 2007, shows the applicant underwent a medical examination on 29 October 2007, for the chief complaint of "numerous and different personas."  The history shows the applicant reported:

   a.  he had numerous and different personas all of his life;
   
   b.  he recalled the sensation of wings and believing he had wings and could fly and he jumped off a ten story building at age 10;
   
   c.  he had two more incidents, one with a minor injury where again thinking he could fly he jumped off a house that was on stilts, and another in which his mother claims he jumped out of a tree; and
   
   d.  his alternate identities emerged prior to coming into the service and became exacerbated after coming into the service.

5.  The NARSUM shows the applicant was currently participating in inpatient treatment (psychiatric ward) and was diagnosed with a "dissociative disorder."  His functional status at the time shows he was unlikely to become a productive Soldier in the foreseeable future and the recommendation was that he continue psychiatric treatment until his MEB was completed.

6.  The NARSUM shows under the Competence heading:

* although the applicant understands the use and value of money his father manages his finances and has done so for the past year
* his capacity to appreciate and fully understand the MEB proceedings is questionable
* the recommendation was that another person (perhaps a family member) sit in the applicant's place for his proceedings

7.  On 29 November 2007 while assigned to the Warrior Transition Battalion at Fort Lewis Washington, an MEB was convened to consider the applicant's case.  The MEB found his dissociative disorder existed prior to service, was not incurred while he was entitled to base pay, and his condition was not permanently aggravated by service.  The MEB referred him to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).

8.  On 6 December 2007, the MEB findings and recommendations were approved by proper authority, and on 18 December 2007, the applicant's father, his next of kin, agreed with the MEB's findings and recommendations and elected not to submit an appeal.  Item 30 (Continuation) of the MEB proceedings includes the statement "The servicemen is not competent to handle his own administrative, financial and legal affairs." 

9.  On 10 January 2008, a PEB at Fort Lewis, Washington considered the applicant’s case.  That PEB determined the applicant's dissociative amnesia (multiple personality disorder) was onset in childhood.  His condition:

* rendered him unfit to perform the duties required of a Soldier of his rank and primary specialty
* was found not to be service incurred or permanently aggravated
* existed prior to entitlement to basic pay and increased only to the extent of its accepted normal and natural progression; there is no permanent aggravation
* his condition was not service incurred or permanently aggravated therefore, he was ineligible for disability compensation and benefits

10.  On 28 January 2008, the applicant's father concurred with the PEB findings and recommendation.

11.  On 27 June 2008, the applicant was honorably discharged, in the rank of specialist, having completed a total of 1 year, 7 months, and 13 days of active military service.  The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 4-24b(4). Item 28 includes the entry "Disability, Existed Prior to Service, PEB."

12.  During the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the Agency Legal Advisor, U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency (USAPDA), in which this official states:

   a.  the applicant did not indicate what corrective action he requests regarding the claimed error;
   
   b.  the MEB found his mental condition of "dissociative disorder "was a long standing condition that existed prior to entry into the military;  
   
   c.  the MEB found the applicant was not mentally competent at that time to handle his own administrative, financial, and legal affairs and his father signed his MEB proceedings and concurred with the stated facts that his son's condition existed before entering the military;
   
   d.  the applicant submitted no evidence to show he is presently competent to represent himself in his case;
   
   e.  the PEB found the MEB evidence supported findings that the applicant's condition was not incurred while entitled to basic pay and his condition was not aggravated by military service;
   
   f.  the applicant did not provide any evidence of any errors in the MEB or PEB processing, the findings were properly concurred with by his father, his legally recognized next of kin;
   
   g.  the PEB's findings were supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the findings were not arbitrary or capricious, and there was no violation of any statute, directive or regulation; and
   
   h.  the recommendation was that there be no change in the applicant's military record.

13.  On 23 February 2011, the applicant was forwarded a copy of the advisory opinion for his comments and/or rebuttal.  To date, no response has been received.

14.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) establishes the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.

15.  Paragraph 4-19e(2) provides guidance on the application of accepted medical principles for conditions which existed prior to entry in service.  It states, after a Soldier is accepted for active duty, discovery of an impairment causing physical disability is not conclusive evidence that the condition was incurred after acceptance.  Consideration must also be given to accepted medical principles in deciding whether a medical impairment was the result of, or aggravated by, military service while the Soldier was entitled to basic pay; or in the case of a Reservist on active duty for 30 days or less, whether the disability was the proximate result of performing active duty or inactive duty training.  Accepted medical principles may not be excluded in making these decisions even when there is no other evidence indicating the impairment was present before the Soldier's entry on active duty.  The Soldier's length of service must be considered when determining service aggravation.  When a decision or recommendation of a PEB is based primarily on accepted medical principles, the principle must be cited as part of the rationale.  Soldiers who are unfit by reason of physical disability neither incurred nor aggravated during any period of service while entitled to basic pay, or as the proximate result of performing active duty or inactive duty training, but which effects duty performance, will be separated for physical disability without entitlement to benefits.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends item 28 of his DD Form 214 should be corrected because his dissociative disorder condition was greatly aggravated by military service.

2.  The NARSUM in this case confirms the applicant's admission of numerous and different personas experienced all of his life and includes his recollection of specific events depicting his irrational behavior.  This admission alone supports the PEB determination that his dissociative disorder was EPTS.  Further, his father concurred with the PEB findings which concluded his condition was unfitting, EPTS, and formed the basis for his discharge from military service.
Necessary 

3.  The available evidence confirms the applicant's dissociative disorder, the existing medical records, and the applicant's testimony of medical history were evaluated during his PEB process.  Considering the short period he was on active duty (23 April 2007) to the time it appears his MEB/PEB processing started (September/October 2007), and his childhood medical history, it appears the PEB properly determined the applicant's dissociative disorder was an EPTS condition and recommended that he be separated on that basis.

4.  The available evidence confirms the applicant was properly processed through the PDES in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations.  
The evidence is not sufficiently compelling to change the medical findings and recommendations that were properly determined at the time of the applicant's PDES processing.

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)                                         AR20100025267



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100025267



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1