IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    14 April 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110005882 


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 his request for correction of the narrative reason for his discharge.

2.  The applicant provides a summary similar to that which he provided with his original request for correction of his records.

   a.  He graduated from Florida Atlantic University (FAU) in 2002 and joined the U.S. Army in 2003.  After completing basic and advanced individual training, he was assigned to Fort Wainwright, Alaska.

   b.  He taught Soldiers basic skills in English and Math, he was recognized with awards, and selected for the "Green to Gold" Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC) program.

   c.  In August 2004, he was assigned to the U.S. Army Student Detachment, Fort Jackson, SC, with ROTC duty at the University of Alaska - Fairbanks (USF). Within a few weeks, he experienced problems with a master sergeant (MSG) and filed an equal opportunity complaint alleging discrimination by the MSG; however, nothing was done.

   d.  At this same time, his house in Florida was damaged by a hurricane and his wife got pregnant with triplets.  The MSG also continued to harass him.

   e.  He was accepted into FAU and the Florida International (FIU) University ROTC program, and requested a transfer to Florida.  However, his commanding officer did not approve the transfer.

   f.  At about this same time he was accused of adultery, falsification of government documents, and distribution of a controlled substance.  As a result, he was disenrolled from the ROTC program.

   g.  He sought counseling for his problems and was command referred for mental health counseling.  He expressed to the counselor that he would like to be discharged from the Army because his commander took away [the opportunity for] his commission and he didn't want to serve in an enlisted status in the Army.

   h.  He transferred to Fort Jackson, South Carolina, and was advised he had two choices; either a court-martial or discharge.  His legal counsel advised him to accept the discharge based on personality disorder and also advised him that he could petition the Army Discharge Review Board to have his discharge reviewed.  He decided to accept the discharge.

   i.  Since his discharge he has continued his education and completed two master's degrees; in political science/international terrorism and criminal justice.

   j.  He has had two job opportunities in law enforcement; however, both were adversely affected when the reason for his discharge was discovered.

   k.  He states the U.S. Army has a history of improperly discharging Soldiers with personality disorders and he was coerced into signing the erroneous discharge.  He requests relief from this injustice.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement, two letters, a psychological evaluation, and his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) that are referred to the Board under congressional inquiry. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records [ABCMR]) sets forth procedures for processing requests for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR.

   a.  Paragraph 2-15b governs requests for reconsideration and allows an applicant to request reconsideration of an earlier ABCMR decision if the request is received within one year of the ABCMR's original decision and it has not previously been reconsidered.  While the applicant's request was not received within one year of the ABCMR's original decision, 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 limitations for timely filing.

   b.  The regulation also 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.

2.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR20060014148, on 19 April 2007.

3.  The applicant had prior enlisted service in the U.S. Navy from 24 May 1999 to through 10 February 2000.  He was discharged under honorable conditions due to personality disorder, which was later administratively corrected to "Condition, Not a Disability."  He was issued a Reentry Eligibility (RE) code of RE-3C.

4.  The applicant was granted a waiver of his RE code and enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 May 2002.  Upon completion of training he was awarded military occupational specialty 92F (Petroleum Supply Specialist).  On
27 January 2004, he was assigned to the 172nd Combat Service Support Battalion, Fort Wainwright, Alaska.

5.  The applicant was accepted in the "Green to Gold" ROTC program and assigned to the U.S. Army Student Detachment - Officer, Fort Jackson, South Carolina, with duty at the UAF to complete a 2-year Master's Degree in Political Science beginning in July 2004.

6.  On 30 December 2004, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's release from the ROTC program based on the applicant's level of performance, attitude, inability to integrate into the program, failure to utilize the chain of command, and his lack of character and integrity.

7.  A USARAK Form 298-R-E (Mental Status Evaluation Request), dated
14 January 2005, shows the applicant made suicidal statements that same morning to MSG R--- R. H---.  It also shows that the applicant's commander, Lieutenant Colonel (LTC) C--- D. C---, consulted with Doctor M---, Mental Health Services, about the applicant's behavior; the doctor agreed that evaluation was necessary; and the applicant was advised of his appointment.  It also shows:

   a.  the evaluation was "command directed" based on the fact that the applicant reported he was suicidal, and

   b.  LTC C--- indicated that the applicant had demonstrated a pattern of misbehavior and misconduct that led to his release from the ROTC Military Science Program, he was borderline insubordinate, and pending adverse administrative action.
   
   c.  He also indicated the applicant did not get along with his peers, did not perform duties satisfactorily, kept to himself, shirked duties, and showed chronic misbehavior.

8.  Headquarters, U.S. Army Medical Department Activity (Alaska), Fort Wainwright, Alaska, memorandum, dated 14 January 2005, Subject:  Command Requested Mental Status Evaluation for [Applicant], shows the applicant was evaluated by Major M--- L. M---, Psychiatrist.

   a.  The applicant denied the problems outlined by LTC C---.

    	(1)  He reported that he felt overwhelmed after being terminated from the ROTC program and charges being filed against him, although the charges were untrue and unsubstantiated.

    	(2)  He acknowledged vague suicidal thoughts, but had not really considered suicide an option.  However, he mentioned that, "he now knows how someone could go 'postal'."  He denied any plans to react in that way.

   b.  The psychiatrist outlined the applicant's mental status.  He noted that the applicant appeared to use denial as a primary defense mechanism and took no responsibility for any of his ongoing problems.  He showed some grandiosity in his conversations and some mild paranoia as he feels "everyone is out to get him."

   c.  The applicant expressed that he did not want to be in the Army and would like to be "chaptered out of the Army."  He also offered that "one of his solutions is to give up his U.S. citizenship and return to the Bahamas versus remaining in the Army."

   d.  The psychiatrist's diagnosis was, "Axis I:  309.9 - Adjustment Disorder Unspecified" and "Axis II:  301.9 - Personality Disorder Not Otherwise Specified."  He noted the applicant's condition represented a character and behavior disorder within the meaning of Army Regulation (AR) 40-501 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), chapter 3-35, and meets the criteria for administrative separation under the provisions of AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Separations), paragraph 5-13 (Personality Disorder).  He added that there was no mental or emotional defect that warranted separation for medical reasons.  He strongly recommended the applicant be considered for administrative separation from the Army.
   
9.  On 2 February 2005, the applicant's commander initiated action to discharge the applicant from the service under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph
5-13, due to personality disorder.

10.  The applicant consulted with counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects, the rights available to him, and of the effect of a waiver of his rights.  The applicant waived consideration of his case by a board of officers contingent upon receiving a characterization of service or description of separation no less favorable than under honorable conditions (general) discharge;

11.  The separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge of the applicant and directed that the applicant be discharged from the U.S. Army under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-13, with an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

12.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was honorably discharged from the U.S. Army 18 February 2005 under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph
5-13, based on personality disorder with RE code "3."  He had completed
2 years, 8 months, and 29 days of net active service this period.

13.  In support of his application, the applicant provides the following documents:

   a.  A letter to the applicant from Ms. J--- J. S---, Human Resources Manager, dated 20 April 2006, that confirmed an offer of employment as a Law Enforcement Recruit with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office (PBSO).  It shows his continued employment was contingent upon several conditions and that, if it were determined the applicant no longer met the standards of PBSO, they had the right to cancel or withdraw the offer of employment.

   b.  Page 1 of a letter to the applicant from the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Washington, DC, dated 7 November 2007, that confirmed an offer of a conditional appointment as a Special Agent in the FBI.  It shows his appointment was contingent upon several conditions and that his conditional appointment would be rescinded if he failed any of the testing and/or investigative aspects of the background investigation.
   
   c.  A Psychological Evaluation of the applicant by W--- H. S---, Ph. D, American Board of Professional Psychology Diplomate, dated 6 January 2010.  The evaluation provides a summary of behavioral observations as related to the psychologist by the applicant and that was similarly presented in the applicant's statement to this Board.

       (1)  The psychologist states the applicant was administered the following tests:

        		(a)  MMPI-2 and that it was valid with no signs of any major mental health disorders, and

        		(b)  MCMI-III and all scales were below 75 with the exception of the Histrionic Scale (93).  Individuals with this profile are described as conforming, preoccupied with gaining approval, and accommodating to a fault rather than rebellious or antisocial.

       (2)  The psychologist opines that the Army psychiatrist's evaluation of the applicant's condition vaguely identifies it as a "personality disorder otherwise not specified."  He adds that there was no objective psychological testing done, just an interview that lasted from 5 to 10 minutes depending on the accuracy of the applicant's report, and that such a brief period of time to arrive at such a decision does not seem within standard of practice.  He adds there should have been a second opinion.

       (3)  The psychologist concludes, "I can state with certainty [the applicant] is a well-functioning professional.  He does not have a lifelong debilitating personality disorder which requires separation from the service."

14.  The Cleveland Clinic website at www.myclevelandclinic.org provides information on diseases and conditions.  It shows that, "[h]istrionic personality disorder is one of a group of conditions called dramatic personality disorders. People with these disorders have intense, unstable emotions and distorted self-images.  For people with histrionic personality disorder, their self-esteem depends on the approval of others and does not arise from a true feeling of self-worth. They have an overwhelming desire to be noticed, and often behave dramatically or inappropriately to get attention.  The word 'histrionic' means 'dramatic or theatrical'."

15.  An explanation of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI-III), available from the Wikipedia encyclopedia at http://en.wikipedia.org, shows that for the Personality and Clinical Syndrome scales, scores of 75-84 are taken to indicate personality trait, or (for the Clinical Syndromes scales) the presence of a clinical syndrome.  Scores of 85 or above indicate the persistence of a personality trait or a clinical syndrome.

16.  AR 635-200, in effect at the time, sets forth 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, when the disorder is so severe that interferes with assignment to or performance of duty.  The diagnosis of personality disorder must have been established by a physician trained in Psychiatry.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends his request for correction of the narrative reason for his discharge should be reconsidered because he was subject to discrimination, coerced into signing the erroneous discharge, and his discharge was unjust.

2.  The applicant's contentions and the evidence he provided were carefully considered.

   a.  The applicant provides no documentary evidence (i.e., a validated EO compliant or other official finding) to support his allegation of discrimination by any Army official in his chain of supervision/command.

   b.  The applicant's psychologist found that the applicant does not have a lifelong debilitating personality disorder which requires separation from the service.  He also opined that there should have been a second opinion in the applicant's case.

    	(1)  The psychologist completed his evaluation of the applicant more than seven years after the applicant's discharge from the Army.  The vast majority of his evaluation is a restatement of the applicant's story, an analysis of the treatment/processing the applicant reported to him that he had received, and his recommended corrections to the Army psychiatrist's evaluation of the applicant. 
   
    	(2)  He provided two short paragraphs describing his own processes and findings.  Moreover, the results of the psychologist's evaluation do not negate or invalidate the diagnosis made by the Army psychiatrist at the time of the applicant's separation processing.

    	(3)  The Army regulation governing the applicant's discharge required that "the diagnosis of personality disorder must have been established by a physician trained in Psychiatry."  The evidence of record shows that such a diagnosis, that met the criteria for administrative separation, was made by an Army psychiatrist in the applicant's case.  There was no requirement for a second opinion as suggested by the applicant's psychologist advocate.  It is not within the purview of this Board to impose such a requirement.

   c.  The applicant submitted a request for a conditional waiver of consideration of his case by an administrative separation board, contingent upon his receiving a characterization of service or description of separation no less favorable than an under honorable conditions (general) discharge.  The applicant was honorably discharged.  Thus, the evidence of record refutes the applicant's contention that he was coerced in matters relating to his discharge.

3.  The applicant's administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, due to personality disorder was in compliance with all requirements of law and applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  In addition, the type of discharge directed and the narrative reason therefore were appropriate and equitable

4.  In view of all of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

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 AR20060014148, dated 19 April 2007.




      _______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)                                         AR20110005882



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110005882



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1