Applicant Name: ?????
Application Receipt Date: 2011/07/07 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA
I. Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change
Issues: The applicant states, in effect, that he requests a change to his narrative reason for separation. He contends a Dr. N submitted a letter changing the personality disorder diagnosis to Adult Attention Deficit Disorder/Adult Attention Deficit Hyperavtivity Disorder (ADD/ADHD). He desires to enlist in the National Guard.
II. Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed?
Tender Offer: NA
See Attachments: Legal Medical Minority Opinion Exhibits
III. Discharge Under Review
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: 100330
Discharge Received: Date: 100402 Chapter: 5-13 AR: 635-200
Reason: Personality Disorder RE: SPD: JFX Unit/Location: Student Company, U.S. Army Signal School Detachment, Fort George G. Meade, MD
Time Lost: None
Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None
Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None
Counseling Records Available: Yes No
IV. Soldiers Overall Record
Age at current enlistment: 40
Current ENL Date: 080805 Current ENL Term: 03 Years 33 Weeks
Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 07 Mos, 28 Days ?????
Total Service: 01 Yrs, 07 Mos, 28 Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E-4 Performance Ratings Available: Yes No
MOS: 68W10 Health Care Spec GT: 124 EDU: ????? Overseas: None Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: NDSM, GWOTSM, ASR
V. Post-Discharge Activity
City, State: Sierra Vista, AZ
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed
VI. Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation
a. Facts and Circumstances:
The evidence of record shows that on 10 March 2010, the applicant was diagnosed by competent medical authority with a disorder of Axis I: Mood Disorder, not otherwise specified (NOS) and Axis II: Personality Disorder (NOS), with narcissistic and borderline traits and recommended expeditious administrative separation in accordance with (IAW) Chapter 5, paragraph 5-13, AR 635-200.
On 30 March 2010, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 5, paragraph 5-13, AR 635-200, by reason of a personality disorder, and recommended an honorable discharge. He was advised of his rights.
On 31 March 2010, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service.
On 4 April 2010, the separation authority directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of fully honorable.
b. Legal Basis for Separation:
Army Regulation 635-200, provides 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, that interferes with assignment to or performance of duty. The regulation requires that the condition is a deeply ingrained maladaptive pattern of behavior of long duration that interferes with the Soldier's ability to perform duty. The regulation also directs that commanders will not take action prescribed in this Chapter in lieu of disciplinary action; requires that the diagnosis concludes the disorder is so severe that the Soldiers ability to function in the military environment is significantly impaired; and states that separation for personality disorder is not appropriate when separation is warranted under Chapter 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, or 15; Army Regulation 604-10 or Army Regulation 635-40. Army policy requires the award of a fully honorable discharge in such case. Characterization of service under honorable conditions may be awarded to a soldier who has been convicted of an offense by general court-martial or who has been convicted by more than one special court-martial in the current enlistment, period of obligated service, or any extension thereof.
c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:
After a careful review of all the applicants military records during the period of enlistment under review, the issues and documents submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit a change to the narrative reason for discharge on the applicant's DD Form 214.
The applicant requested a change to the narrative reason for separation. However, the narrative reason for separation is governed by specific directives. The applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 5, paragraph 5-13, AR 635-200. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Personality Disorder," the separation code is "JFX," and the reentry code is "RE 3."
Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28, separation code, entered in block 26, and RE Code, entered in block 27 of the form, will be entered exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There is no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation.
The applicant contends Dr. N submitted a letter changing the personality disorder diagnosis to Adult Attention Deficit Disorder (AADD). The applicant did not provide the letters from Dr. H and the VA hospital as indicated on his DD Form 149 to substantiate his contention that his diagnosis was changed to ADD/ADHD. However, the evidence of record shows that the applicant was diagnosed by competent medical authority with a disorder of Axis I: Mood Disorder, not otherwise specified (NOS) and Axis II: Personality Disorder (NOS), with narcissistic and borderline traits.
Further, there is a presumption of regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs that shall be applied in any review unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption. The applicant bears the burden of overcoming this presumption through the presentation of substantial and credible evidence to support his contention. There is no evidence in the record, nor has the applicant produced sufficient evidence, to support the contention that he was incorrectly diagnosed.
The applicant desires to enlist in the National Guard. At the time of discharge the applicant was appropriately assigned a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 3. If the applicant desires to reenlist, he should contact the local recruiter to determine his eligibility to reenlist. Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes.
Therefore, the analyst determined the narrative reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief.
VII. Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing
Type of Hearing: Date: 27 January 2012 Location: Washington, DC
Did the Applicant Testify? Yes No
Counsel: NA
Witnesses/Observers: NA
Exhibits Submitted: two (2) DD Forms 149, dated (110409); DD Form 214, dated (100402); E-mail traffic, dated (110411); Chapter 5-13 Discharge Packet, nineteen (19) pages; Military Personnel File, nine (9) pages; Memorandum, Request for cursory medical review of application, AR20110010364, dated (110809); and a Letter, Chief, Congressional and Special Actions, dated (110712), with three (3) Congressional Documents. The letters from Dr. H and the VA hospital were not attached with the DD Form 149.
VIII. Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analyst's recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.
IX. Board Decision
Board Vote:
Character - Change 0 No change 0
Reason - Change 0 No change 5
(Board member names available upon request)
X. Board Action Directed
Issue a new DD Form 214
Change Characterization to:
Change Reason to: No Change
Other: NA
RE Code:
Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: None
XI. Certification Signature
Approval Authority:
EDGAR J. YANGER
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board
BONITA E. TROTMAN
Lieutenant Colonel, U. S. Army
Secretary Recorder
?????
Legend:
AWOL Absent Without Leave GCM General Court Martial NA Not applicable SCM Summary Court Martial
BCD Bad Conduct Discharge GD General Discharge NIF Not in the file SPCM Special Court Martial
CG Company Grade Article 15 HD Honorable Discharge OAD Ordered to Active Duty UNC Uncharacterized Discharge
DD Dishonorable Discharge HS High School Graduate OMPF Official Military Personnel File UOTH Under Other Than Honorable
FG Field Grade Article 15 IADT Initial Active Duty Training RE Reentry Code Conditions
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE
Case Number AR20110010364
______________________________________________________________________________
Page 3 of 3 pages
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600935
The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Documentation In addition to the service record, the following additional documentation, submitted by the Applicant, was considered:Applicant’s DD Form 214 (Member 4)Five pages from the Applicant’s Service Record PART II - SUMMARY OF SERVICE Prior Service (component, dates of service, type of discharge): Inactive: USNR (DEP) 20010328 - 20010726 COG Active: None Period...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140017371
The applicant contends that the separation authority, narrative reason for separation, separation code, and RE code shown on his DD Form 214 should be corrected because he was diagnosed with seizures and ADHD; however, he was not properly tested to determine if the diagnoses were accurate and his medical records prove that he does not have those medical conditions. Moreover, there is no evidence of record that shows he was separated from military service based on any such condition(s). e....
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140010671
The PDBR SRP conducted a comprehensive review of the applicant's submissions and records for evidence of inappropriate changes in the diagnosis of an MH condition during processing through the military disability system. The SRP carefully considered all available evidence The applicant's MH diagnosis was changed during the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) process, but none of the changes in diagnoses were to the applicant's possible disadvantage. The July 2011 examination...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130018347
On 16 March 2006, the separation authority directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of honorable. One counseling statement dated 3 March 2006, informing the applicant of his separation from active duty for a personality disorder IAW AR 635-200, Chapter 5-13. The unit commander properly initiated discharge proceedings under the provisions of Chapter 5, paragraph 5-13, AR 635-200, in effect at the time, by reason of personality disorder, with a characterization...
AF | PDBR | CY2011 | PD2011-00573
The severity of the ADHD symptoms was assessed as “moderate” and the DoDI 1332.39 defined level of social/industrial impairment was entered as “definite.” The VA rating psychiatrist proximal to TDRL placement formally concurred with the MEB psychiatric opinion, listing ADHD as a separate axis I diagnosis; although, not providing a separate assessment of severity as did the MEB examiner. The TDRL examination prior to separation, documented that the CI’s “psychiatric illness has continued...
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2003-02030
Prior regulations used the more inclusive and less confusing “character and behavior disorder.” Since the applicant was also diagnosed on AXIS II: with Abnormal Dependent Personality Traits and demonstrated misconduct more consistent with maladaptive personality traits than a learning disorder, the medical consultant concludes the narrative reason for separation is appropriate. We took notice of the applicant's complete submission in judging the merits of the case; however, we agree with...
ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070011310
On 5 June 2007, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 5, paragraph 5-13, by reason of personality disorder, diagnosed by a medically qualified psychiatrist as suffering with a long standing disorder of character, chronic maladaptive behavior that significantly impairs the ability to adapt and function in a military environment. The regulation also directs that commanders will not take action prescribed in...
NAVY | DRB | 2006_Navy | ND0600152
The Applicant requests the Discharge Characterization of Service received at the time of discharge be changed to honorable. Additionally, in the absence of substantial and credible evidence to the contrary, the Board presumed that the Applicant’s character of service, general (under honorable conditions), was warranted at the time of issuance. As of this time, the Applicant has not provided any post-service documentation for the Board to consider.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130019663
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his records, including the authority, narrative reason, separation program designator (SPD) code, and reentry eligibility (RE) code of his administrative discharge, to show that he was discharged based on a medical finding of being physically unfit for active duty and an upgrade of the characterization of his service to honorable. It requires a Soldier being considered for administrative separation under Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011189
The term "Axis" refers to the use of the multiaxial system of evaluation outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSMMD). On 6 November 2007, a medical evaluation board (MEBD) convened at IACH, Fort Knox, and after consideration of the clinical records, laboratory findings, and physical examinations, the MEBD found the applicant had the medical conditions of OCD and ADHD and recommended his referral to a physical evaluation board (PEB). Based on these new...