IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  22 May 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110022712 


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 correction of the narrative reason for his discharge, including his Separation Program Designator (SPD) code, to show he was medically discharged.

2.  The applicant states during basic training he developed a knee condition that worsened as training progressed, until he was unable to do physical training.  He received treatment for the medical condition and the condition was recognized during his separation processing.  He was not given a medical discharge and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has denied his claim based on the reason for his discharge.

3.  The applicant provides, in support of his request, copies of his medical 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 August 1990 for a period of 4 years.  At the time he was 31 years of age.

3.  He completed basic training and, on 26 October 1990, he was reassigned to Goodfellow Air Force Base, Texas, for training in military occupational specialty 98C (Signal Intelligence Analyst).

4.  On 4 May 1991, the applicant was evaluated by Major Thomas H----, II, Chief, Child/Adolescent Psychiatry.  He was diagnosed with:

	a.  Axis I:  no diagnosis.

	b.  Axis II:  schizoidal personality disorder with avoidant features.

	c.  Axis III:  knee dysfunction.

5.  The psychiatrist found no significant psychiatric disease/disorder.  He noted the applicant's deficiency in attitude and motivation for continued military service; personality disorder resulting in significant impairment in functions; and personality disorder incompatible with continued military service. 

6.  He concluded that the applicant's "mental status clinical examination reveals extremely poor judgment in keeping with his diagnosis, consisting of destructive and ineffective coping mechanisms to deal with stress, such as suicidal ideation and actions."

7.  The psychiatrist cleared the applicant for any action deemed appropriate by his command and strongly recommended expeditious separation in accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 5 (Convenience of the Government), paragraph     5-13.

8.  On 5 June 1991, the applicant's commander initiated action to discharge him from the service under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-13, due to personality disorder that interferes with assignment or performance of duty.  The applicant was informed of his rights and that the commander was recommending the applicant receive an honorable discharge.

9.  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.

	a.  He elected not to submit statements in his own behalf and indicated he understood he would be ineligible to apply for enlistment in the U.S. Army for a period of 2 years.

   b.  The applicant and his consulting counsel placed their signatures on the document on 7 June 1991.
   
10.  The commander recommended approval of the applicant's separation action.

11.  On 18 June 1991, the separation authority approved the commander's recommendation for the applicant's discharge and directed that he be discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 5-13, because of personality disorder with the issuance of an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

12.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was honorably discharged on
28 June 1991.  He completed 10 months and 8 days of net active service.  It shows in:

* item 25 (Separation Authority):  AR 635-200, paragraph 5-13
* item 26 (Separation Code):  "JFX" (Personality Disorder)
* item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation):  "Personality Disorder"

13.  A review of the applicant's military service records failed to reveal any evidence that he was referred to a Medical Evaluation Board for a knee condition or that he was found unfit because of such physical disability.

13.  In support of his application, the applicant provides medical records that document the applicant's treatment for various medical complaints during the period 28 September 1990 to 18 June 1991.  With respect to the medical condition concerning his knees, the medical records show:

* 28 September 1990:  left knee first examined, "WNL" (within normal limits)
* 10 December 1990:  "left knee pain - EPTS" (Existed Prior To Service), old football injury"
* 28 January 1991:  referred to physical therapy for knee pain (Retropatello Femoral Syndrome) since basic training; EPTS (football injury)
* 28 February 1991:  complained of pain in both knees
* 14 March 1991:  temporary profile issued with self-rehabilitation program
* 1 April 1991:  pain and fluid on both knees, orthopedic evaluation scheduled for 22 April; profile extended to 25 April 1991
* 23 April 1991:  orthopedic evaluation with recommendation to consider arthroscopic surgery, if condition not improved
* 30 April 1991:  continued medication and exercise program; profile extended through 1 June 1991
* 29 May 1991:  follow-up for left knee pain; evaluation indicated arthro surgery would be indicated (electively), although no guarantee it would alleviate all pain; placed on waiting list for "left knee scope"
* 31 May 1991:  Standard Form (SF) 88 (Report of Medical Examination) documenting applicant's separation examination; noted knee condition and assessed his lower extremities as "normal"
* 5 June 1991:  orthopedic surgeon noted applicant scheduled for separation and cleared for separation (SF 88); verified by medical doctor on 6 June 1991
* 6 June 1991:  arthroscopic surgery deferred; temporary profile extended through 25 June 1991

15.  AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) 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.  If a Soldier is found unfit because of physical disability, it provides for referral of the Soldier to a Medical Evaluation Board and disposition according to applicable laws and regulations.

16.  AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3 (Medical Standards for Retention and Separation, Including Retirement), paragraph 3-35, provides that a personality disorder does not render an individual unfit because of physical disability, but may be the basis for administrative separation if causing interference with military duty.

17.  AR 635-200 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 AR 635-40, when the disorder is so severe that it interferes with assignment to or performance of duty.  The diagnosis of personality disorder must have been established by a psychiatrist or doctoral-level clinical psychologist with necessary and appropriate professional credentials.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his administrative discharge should be changed to show he was medically discharged.

2.  The applicant's contention and the evidence he provided were carefully considered.
	a.  The evidence of record shows the applicant's left knee was examined on 18 September 1990 and found to be within normal limits.  It was also found that the knee condition existed prior to service.

   b.  The Army medical records that the applicant provides offer no evidence that he was found unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating that required his referral to the physical disability evaluation system.  In fact, the records show that elective surgery was offered as an option to correct the knee condition; however, there is no evidence the applicant acted on this option.
   
   c.  The Army regulation governing the applicant's discharge required that "the diagnosis of personality disorder must have been established by a physician or doctoral-level clinical psychologist with necessary and appropriate professional credentials."  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.
   
   d.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was medically cleared for separation under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-13.

3.  The applicant's administrative separation under the provisions of AR 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 her rights.  In addition, the narrative reason for discharge and assigned SPD code were appropriate and equitable.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the 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)                                         AR20110022712



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110022712



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1