IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  18 August 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100028404 


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 reconsideration of her earlier request that the narrative reason for her separation be changed from personality disorder to unsatisfactory performance.

2.  The applicant states that if her chain of command knew since 31 July 2003 that she had a personality disorder, then no action should have been taken against her.  She contends she was being counseled since July 2002 and is afraid that a lot of information was not reported.  She is sure that things may have been changed in her medical records since she left because the Army knew that she was going to reapply to have her discharge changed.  She is asking that her narrative reason for separation be changed for the following reasons:

	a.  medical records were probably changed to make it look like the Army was justified in making their allegations;

	b.  she failed her first Army Physical Fitness Test and rifle range; and

	c.  she had several counseling statements for unsatisfactory performance.

3.  The applicant provides:

* a copy of the original Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Record of Proceedings
* a psychological treatment progress note, dated 8 September 2010

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20100011919, on 28 October 2010.

2.  The applicant has presented new arguments concerning the alleged alteration of her medical records and reference to counseling statements for unsatisfactory performance which warrant consideration by the Board.

3.  After having had prior enlisted service in the U.S. Navy and the Army National Guard, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 June 2002 in the rank of specialist (SPC)/E-4.

4.  The previous Record of Proceedings noted:

	a.  the 3-year statute of limitations was waived allowing the Board to fully consider her request.

	b.  she received nonjudicial punishment on two occasions for being disrespectful towards noncommissioned officers and she was counseled on several occasions about her behavior and work performance.

	c.  she was evaluated by the 1st Infantry Division Mental Health on 31 July 2003 which found her behavior normal.  She was fully alert and oriented and displayed a labile [unstable] mood.  Her thinking was clear, thought content normal, and memory was good.  She had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings and she was mentally responsible and met retention standards.  The evaluating psychologist indicated that he would consult with the applicant's chain of command to determine the most appropriate disposition.

	d.  the 1st Infantry Division psychologist noted on 1 August 2003 that she met the diagnostic criteria for schizotypal personality disorder, a deeply-ingrained maladaptive pattern of behavior of long duration and recommended separation from the service due to a personality disorder.

	e.  her commander recommended separation for personality disorder and she consulted with counsel and requested that a board of officers consider her case.  The designated consulting counsel indicated that the governing regulation provided that she must receive an honorable discharge.

	f.  the separation authority directed the applicant's separation with an honorable discharge.

	g.  she was discharged on 10 October 2003 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 5-13, by reason of personality disorder.

5.  The medical records she contends may have been changed are not available for review.

6.  She provided a psychological treatment progress note, dated 8 September 2010, that indicates she has been seen on a monthly or bi-weekly basis since August 2009 and she was diagnosed with Asperger's disorder (a disorder that is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests.)

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, that 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.  The regulation also directed that commanders would not take action prescribed in this chapter in lieu of disciplinary action, required that the diagnosis concluded the disorder was so severe that the Soldier's ability to function in the military environment was significantly impaired, and stated that separation for personality disorder was not appropriate when separation was warranted under chapter 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13 (Separation for Unsatisfactory Performance), 14, or 15; Army Regulation 604-10; or Army Regulation 635-40.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that her previous request to correct her narrative reason for separation should be reconsidered because her medical records may have been changed to make it look like the Army was justified in making their allegations.

2.  The medical records she refers to are not available for review and she failed to provide evidence substantiating her claim that such records were altered by Army personnel.  

3.  Evidence of record confirms she was diagnosed with a personality disorder by competent military medical authorities and that her separation process was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize her rights.  She failed to provide evidence showing that her separation processing was in error or unjust.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the narrative reason for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  In view of the above, her request for reconsideration to change the narrative reason for her separation 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20100011919, dated 28 October 2010.



      ___________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)                                         AR20100028404



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100028404



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1