IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  15 March 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110017806 


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 the narrative reason for separation on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show "medical disability" instead of "personality disorder."

2.  The applicant states he was in excellent mental health when he entered the Army.  He claims his mental state took a turn for the worse after he enlisted and doctors gave his conditions many labels and put him in the psychiatric ward.  As a result, the reason for his discharge should be medical disability.

3.  In support of his application the applicant provides his DD Form 214.  He also refers to military medical records and his Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical records; however, he fails to provide these records.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, 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 statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 July 1987.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 94B (Food Service Specialist).  His record shows he was advanced to private first class (PFC)/E-3 on 1 April 1988, and that this is the highest rank/grade he attained while serving on active duty.

3.  On 18 January 1989, the applicant underwent a mental health evaluation.  The examining psychiatrist found no disease, disorder, or defect that would have warranted disposition through medical channels and confirmed the applicant met retention standards.  The applicant was diagnosed with an Axis I Mixed Personality Disorder.  The psychiatrist indicated that generally these disorders are life-long and deeply ingrained maladaptive patterns of behavior.  He finally recommended the applicant be considered for administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-13, by reason of personality disorder. 

4.  The applicant’s military medical records are not available for review.  It appears at some point they were requested by and provided to the VA based on a claim by the applicant.  The separation packet on file confirms the applicant underwent a final medical examination; however, the record of medical examination is not available for review.

5.  On 31 January 1989, the applicant’s unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, by reason of personality disorder.

6.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel and he was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation, its effects, and of the rights available to him.  Subsequent to this counseling, the applicant completed an election of rights in which he elected not to submit statements in his own behalf.

7.  On 31 January 1989, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, and directed he receive an honorable discharge.  On 7 February 1989, the applicant was discharged accordingly.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets policies, standards, and procedures for the administration of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-13 provides for the separation 


of members separated for personality disorder (not amounting to disability).  The regulation stipulates separation because of personality disorder is authorized only if the diagnosis concludes that the disorder is so severe that the Soldier's ability to function effectively in the military environment is significantly impaired. Separation for personality disorder is not appropriate when separation is warranted under Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation).

9.  Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army's 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.  Paragraph 3-1 outlines the standards of unfitness because of physical disability.  It states the mere presence of impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability.  In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier reasonably may be expected to perform because of their office, grade, rank, or rating.

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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s request to change the narrative reason for his separation to show he was discharged by reason of medical disability as opposed to personality disorder has been carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidentiary basis to support this claim.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation by competent military medical personnel that resulted in a diagnosed personality disorder that interfered with his adequately performing his military duties, but that was no disqualifying from further service.  It also confirms he completed a separation medical examination and while a record of this examination is no longer in the MPRJ procedurally he would have had to have been found medically qualified for further service by competent medical authority in order to be separated.  As a result, as evidenced by the mental status evaluation and medical examination, it is concluded he suffered from no disqualifying medical condition that would have warranted his separation processing through medical channels. 

3.  The applicant’s separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  
Army regulations and DOD authorities state that a medical impairment alone does not constitute a physical disability for DOD rating purposes.  Furthermore, determinations of fitness or unfitness rest with the military departments.  In this case, the applicant was clearly found qualified for continued service by competent medical authority at the time of his separation and the applicant has failed to provide independent evidence that would call into question the validity of the military medical determinations made at the time of his discharge.  As a result, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief.

4.  The applicant is advised that the VA may grant disability ratings for service connected conditions and their determinations on whether a condition is service connected rests solely with that agency.  If he has questions regarding whether his mental conditions are service connected and if he qualifies for VA medical treatment he should address those questions to that agency.

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)                                         AR20110017806



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110017806



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1