IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  10 May 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100025547 


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 change of his narrative reason for separation from personality disorder.

2.  The applicant states his case was appealed and his discharge was changed to service-connected due to an injury incurred during basic training.

3.  The applicant provides:

* A letter from the Army Review Boards Agency to his Representative in Congress, dated 5 October 2010
* A letter from his Representative in Congress to the Army Review Boards Agency, dated 24 September 2010
* A self-authored letter to his Representative in Congress, dated 19 May 2010
* Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Board of Veterans’ Appeals Decisional Document, dated 4 June 1997
* Army Discharge Review Board Decisional Document, dated 17 October 2008

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Army on 1 December 1992.

2.  The specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not available for review.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he received shows he was discharged on
28 January 1993, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-13, due to personality disorder.  He received a character of service of uncharacterized.  He completed 1 month and 28 days of net active service.

3.  On 5 December 2007, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board.  He claimed he appealed his discharge and it was changed to a medical discharge; however, his DD Form 214 still reflected uncharacterized with a narrative reason of "personality disorder."

4.  On 17 October 2008, the Army Discharge Review Board, having carefully reviewed all of the applicant's available records and the issues and documents he submitted, determined there were no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of his discharge or a change to his narrative reason for separation.  As a result, the reason for discharge and his characterization of service remained both proper and equitable; therefore, the board denied his request.

5.  In his letter to his Representative in Congress, dated 19 May 2010, he states:

* his character of service is honorable; however, his DD Form 214 incorrectly shows that he has a personality disorder
* when he was in basic training he had a sharp pain in his right ear and he heard a loud pop and distorted sounds
* he was diagnosed with a blown eardrum, told to take Tylenol, and to return to sick call for a follow-up
* when he returned to sick call the doctor told him they saw nothing wrong
* he was returned to duty without approval to wear cotton in his ear or to take Tylenol
* he was told by his drill sergeant that he could not wear cotton in his ear because it is not part of the uniform
* he continued to experience pain and he continued to be told by doctors that there was nothing wrong
* he was told he was being sent home with a general discharge and it would be like he was never in the Army
* once he returned home he went to the nearest VA hospital and he was told his discharge was overturned
* he was told he had a service-connected disability rating of zero (0) percent (%) for tinnitus and he could receive treatment for his ear problem
* his VA service-connected disability rating was later increased to 10%

6.  The VA Board of Veterans’ Appeals Decisional Document he submits shows his claims for service-connection for a perforated eardrum and an increased (compensable) evaluation for tinnitus were denied.

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

8.  Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards for Medical Fitness), paragraph 3-3b(1), provides that for an individual to be found unfit by reason of physical disability, he must be unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating.

9.  Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 2-2b, provides that when a member is being separated by reason other than physical disability, his continued performance of duty creates a presumption of fitness which can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that he was unable to perform his duties, 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.

10.  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.

11.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR.  The regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted.  His supporting documents have been considered.

2.  He has provided no evidence to show that his narrative reason for separation shown on his DD Form 214 is incorrect.  His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-13, due to a personality disorder.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that what the Army did in his case is correct.

3.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.

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)                                         AR20090005994



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100025547



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1