IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE: 1 December 2011 

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110009652 


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 request for a medical discharge.

2.  The applicant states she joined the Army because of the opportunities it offered.  

	a.  She was orphaned when her mother was diagnosed with Schizophrenia.
She grew up as a Ward of the Court.  Despite all that, she worked her way through high school and college. 

	b.  She joined the Army with a Bachelors Degree in Political Science.  She had no record of undesirable behavior before or after her deployment to Kosovo.  She even managed to make it through basic training with a deeply ingrained personality disorder that should have made it difficult for her to take orders and to conform to society’s norms.

	c.  She worked as a unit supply sergeant in a Military Intelligence unit.  This position was designed for a staff sergeant with at least 6 years of experience.  She performed the duties with just two years of experience.

	d.  She states that many of her records are erroneous, and some important documents were not considered in her case.


		(1)  The Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Record of Proceedings (ROP) indicates she enlisted as an E-1 for 4 years when her    DD Form 4 (Enlistment Contract) shows she enlisted as an E-4 for 3 years.

		(2)  The evaluation she was given on 16 July 2003, by Doctor Thomas
K------, clearly shows she was diagnosed with depression.  Item 74 of the evaluation was originally checked indicating she was qualified for service, but it was marked out and the block indicating she was not qualified for service was checked.

		(3)  Under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders IV (DSM-IV), a Major Depressive Episode is the diminished ability to think or concentrate, nearly every day either by subjective account or as observed by others.

		(4)  The stress of her job, along with the assault, resulted in a meltdown from which she could not recuperate.  She did not file an assault case because she wanted to protect the people in her unit.  She was confused and in many situations misled.  She did sign the paperwork without proper representation or guidance.  She had no family or friends to confide in and get advice.

	e.  She believes she should receive a medical discharge.  She was a good Soldier with an impeccable record.  There are no records of insubordination and she always did her job.  She didn’t want to let her team down.  She worked to a point where she could not do it anymore.

3.  The applicant also states she does not meet any of the criteria of a Personality Disorder and she lists the below criteria:

	a.  longstanding pattern of disregard for the rights of others,

	b.  failure to conform to society’s norms that often results in numerous arrests,

	c.  history of deceitfulness, where the individual tends t con people and use trickery for personal use, and

	d. irresponsible behavior and no remorse for one’s wrongdoings.

4.  The applicant provides copies of:

* the prior ABCMR ROP, dated 11 May 2010
* her memorandum acknowledging receipt of separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 5
* page 1 of her DD Form 4, dated 16 April 2010
* page 3 of her DD Form 2808 (Report of Medical Examination), dated
16 July 2003
* an internet article from Mental Health Today on Major Depressive Episode and Major Depressive Disorder
* her Honorable Discharge Certificate, dated 19 September 2003
* her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)

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 ABCMR in Docket Number AR20090017767, on 11 May 2010.

2.  The applicant's documents submitted with this case, except for her DD Form 214, were not previously reviewed by the ABCMR.  Therefore, they are considered new evidence and warrant consideration by the Board.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Delayed Entry Program (DEP) on 16 April 2001 in the rank/grade of specialist (SPC)/E-4.  She was discharged from the USAR DEP on 21 August 2001 and she enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 August 2001 in the rank/grade of SPC/E-4 for 4 years.  She completed training and she was awarded military occupational specialty 92Y (Unit Supply Specialist).

4.  On 9 June 2003, she was issued a temporary physical profile with an expiration date of 9 July 2003.  She was given a T3 under the "S" (psychiatric) factor of the P-U-L-H-E-S profile for "depression, not otherwise specified; personality disorder, not otherwise specified; and status post overdose of Paxil."  She was excluded from firing or carrying a rifle.

5.  A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, prepared by the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, Inpatient Psychiatry Service (Germany), dated 9 June 2003, shows her behavior was calm and appropriate, with no further attempts at suicide since her overdose while deployed in Kosovo.  Her mood or affect was unremarkable; her thinking process was normal; her thought content, at that time she denied thoughts of suicide; and her memory was good.  Her concentration and energy levels were good.  The evaluating physician, the Chief, Inpatient Psychiatry, diagnosed her with a personality disorder and depression, both not otherwise specified.  The evaluating physician proposed follow-up treatment with mental health.  He recommended that as a precaution the applicant should be precluded from alcohol consumption and access to weapons and ammunition.  The evaluating physician found the applicant met the retention standards prescribed in Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3, and that there was no psychiatric disease/defect that warranted disposition through medical channels; however, the criteria for administrative separation was present.

6.  The evaluating physician also stated the diagnosis of personality disorder represented a personality disorder within the meaning of ICD-9-CM (International 
Classification of Diseases, 9th Revision Clinical Modification), Army Regulation 40-501, Army Regulation 635-200, and the DSM-IV.  He found that the applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and she had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.  He opined that her condition was a deeply ingrained, maladaptive pattern of behavior of long duration.  The severity of her condition resulted in significant impairment in the ability of the applicant to function in a military environment.  The evaluating physician further stated the condition and problems presented by the applicant were not in his opinion, amenable to hospitalization, treatment, transfer, disciplinary action, training, or reclassification to another type of duty within the military.  It was unlikely that efforts to rehabilitate or develop the applicant into a satisfactory member of the military would be successful.  He cleared the applicant for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command and noted the psychiatric factors indicated that administrative separation under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, would be in the best interests of the applicant and the military.

7.  An Inpatient Psychiatry Discharge Note, dated 9 June 2003, states her unit was willing to separate her in accordance with her wishes.

8.  An undated DA Form 3982 (Medical and Dental Appointment) shows the applicant was scheduled for an appointment with a psychiatrist at the Wurzburg Outpatient Clinic, Germany, on 12 June [2003] at 1000.  However, there is no record of this visit in the applicant's available records.

9.  On 26 June 2003, she received rehabilitative counseling to overcome behavioral deficiencies and she was afforded the opportunity to take advantage of rehabilitation efforts.  It was noted that there was no indication that her condition had changed or improved.  Separation under the provisions of 
Army Regulation 635-200 was recommended.  She acknowledged receipt of counseling.

10.  On 10 July 2003, she received follow-up rehabilitative counseling to overcome behavioral deficiencies.  She was advised that there was no indication she had overcome or improved her condition.  On the same date, she acknowledged receipt of counseling.

11.  On 11 August 2003, the applicant's unit commander notified her that he was initiating action to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13 for a personality disorder.  The specific reason for the proposed action was her diagnosis, by a mental health psychiatrist, as having a personality disorder and depression.  Her commander further stated that her condition could potentially interfere with her assignment to or performance of duty.  He recommended she receive an honorable discharge.

12.  On 11 August 2003, after consulting with counsel, she acknowledged the proposed separation action, its effects, and the rights available to her.  She elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.

13.  On 19 August 2003, the applicant's unit commander recommended her separation under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 5-13.  On the same day, the intermediate commander concurred and recommended she receive an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

14.  On 19 August 2003, the applicant's recommendation for discharge was reviewed by the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, 101st Military Intelligence Battalion.  After review by trial counsel, the recommendation for separation was found to be legally sufficient.

15.  On 19 September 2003, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 5-13 for personality disorder, with an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

16.  On 19 September 2003, the applicant was honorably discharged accordingly.  She completed 2 years and 28 days of creditable active service.

17.  In support of her request for reconsideration, she provides the following documents:

	a.  DD Form 4 (page 1) that shows she enlisted in the USAR on 16 April 2001 for a period of 8 years in pay grade E-4.

	b.  DD Form 2808 (page 3) that shows in item 74 was checked showing she was qualified for service and changed to show she was not qualified for service.
	c.  an internet article describing the diagnostic criteria for DSM IV, Major Depressive Episode and Major Depressive Disorder.

18.  The applicant's Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision, dated 13 April 2009, shows she was awarded 70 percent (%) service-connection for post traumatic stress and 10% service-connection for a shin splint (left side) effective 17 October 2008.  In a letter from the VA, dated 17 April 2009, she was advised of her entitlement and compensation amounts.

19.  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), 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 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 Army Regulation 635-40.

20.  Army Regulation 635-40, in effect at the time, established the Army physical disability evaluation system and set forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier was unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his/her office, grade, rank, or rating.  It provided for medical evaluation boards, which were convened to document a Soldier's medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty was affected by the Soldier's status.  A decision was made as to the Soldier's medical qualifications for retention based on the criteria in Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3.

21.  Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3, provides that, for the separation of an individual found to be unfit by reason of physical disability, the individual must be unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating.  Members with 
conditions, as listed in this chapter, are considered medically unfit for retention on active duty and are referred for disability processing.  Personality disorder is listed as a condition that warrants administrative separation, not medical separation.

22.  Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permit the VA to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  The VA has neither the authority nor the responsibility for determining physical fitness for the military service.  It awards disability ratings to veterans for conditions that it determines were incurred during military service and subsequently affect the individual's civilian employability.  

23.  Title 38, U.S. Code, section 5304 states that, except to the extent that retirement pay is waived under other provisions of law, not more than one award of pension, compensation, or reserve retirement pay shall be made concurrently to any person based on such person’s own service.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that her discharge should be changed to medical because many of her records on file are erroneous and some important documents were not considered in her case.

2.  She provided a copy of page 1 of a DD Form 4 showing she enlisted in the USAR for 8 years as an E-4 on 16 April 2001.  The original ROP shows she enlisted in the USAR DEP on 16 April 2001 beginning in pay grade E-4.  Page 3 of the DD Form 4 shows she was discharged from the USAR DEP and she enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years in the pay grade E-4, not pay grade E-1 as stated in the ROP.  However, her grade at the time of enlistment does not have any relevance to her contention that she should have been medically discharged.

3.  She provided a copy of page 3 of a DD Form 2808, dated 17 July 2003, which shows item 74 was checked showing she was qualified for service and then changed to show she was not qualified for service.  This medical examination was conducted in conjunction with the recommendation for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 5-13.  It appears the examining physical changed the block he initially checked to show she was, in fact, not qualified for service.  The applicant further acknowledged that she was advised of her disqualifyig condition on 16 July 2003.

4.  She states she does not meet any of the diagnostic criteria from the list she provided for a personality disorder; however, she provided an internet article on Major Depressive Episode and Major Depressive Disorder, not personality disorder.  In June 2003, she was diagnosed by an Army psychiatrist with a personality disorder and depression.  She was not found to have a psychiatric disease/defect that warranted disposition through medical channels, indicating the psychiatrist found her depression not to have been severe enough to warrant medical processing.  As a result, she was honorably separated based on a personality disorder.

5.  The documents provided by the applicant have been noted.  Notwithstanding the error regarding her enlistment grade, she has not provided any relevant documentation or convincing argument concerning her eligibility for or entitlement to a medical discharge.  The available evidence of record shows her administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors.  

6.  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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number 20090017767, dated 11 May 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)                                         AR20110002893



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110009652



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1