IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  17 July 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120002029 


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, in effect, correction of his records to show he was medically discharged for a personality disorder he developed as a result of the racially discriminating activity he was exposed to during his military service.

2.  The applicant states he was blackballed and honorably discharged as a result of "hate group militia activity incurred in the ranks in 1984."  He states there is no mention in his records of the incidents leading up to the psychiatric diagnosis resulting in his eventual discharge and no coverage for follow-up medical benefits.

3.  The applicant provides:

* Congressional correspondence, including his request for a line-of-duty discharge
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* medical/psychiatric treatment correspondence
* certificates of appreciation and recognition
* Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) claims forms
* Internet article titled, "Demand Erupts for Probe of Hate Groups in the U.S. Military"
* high school diploma
* enlistment documents
* one-station unit training completion certificate and assignment orders
* DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II)


* Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination)
* personal correspondence
* psychotherapy assessments

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's records show he enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 August 1983.  He completed one-station unit training at Fort Sill, OK, and was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Battery, 3rd Battalion, 8th Field Artillery, Fort Bragg, NC, on 12 November 1983.  He was further assigned to Battery B, 3rd Battalion, 8th Field Artillery, effective 1 January 1984.

3.  On 23 January 1984, he was issued a letter of reprimand by his battalion commander for uttering several dishonored checks.  He was advised that further incidents of this nature could result in nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

4.  His records show he subsequently received NJP on multiple occasions for pawning U.S. Government property and failing to report at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.  His records also show he served a period of military confinement.

5.  On 13 September 1984, the applicant's battery commander counseled him about his possible elimination from the service.  He was advised that if he were administratively discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance he could receive a general discharge under honorable conditions.  This type of discharge could adversely affect his ability to obtain civilian employment.  If he were administratively discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  This type of discharge could adversely affect both civilian employment and veterans' benefits.  The applicant indicated he acknowledged and understood the reason for the counseling session.  He stated in his own hand that he felt it was in the best interests of the Army and himself to be released from all military activity until he felt he could adapt to the military environment.

6.  On 15 October 1984, he underwent a medical examination for the purpose of separation under the provisions of 635-200, chapter 13.  He was determined to be qualified for processing under chapter 13 by the medical examiner.

7.  On 31 October 1984, he was notified by his battery commander of his intent to recommend his administrative elimination from the U.S. Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 5-13, based on the psychiatric evaluation indicating he was incapable of adapting to the military.  He was advised that he had the right to consult with an attorney, to obtain copies of the documents which would be sent to the separation authority, to present written statements in his own behalf, to waive these rights, and to withdraw the waiver of these rights at any time before the separation authority orders, directs, or approves his discharge.  If so discharged, he would receive an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

8.  On the same date, the applicant acknowledged the aforementioned rights in his separation proceedings under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13.  He stated he understood that he had the right to waive those rights and he elected to exercise that option.

9.  On 31 October 1984, the applicant's battery commander recommended his separation due to personality disorder under the provisions of paragraph 5-13 of Army Regulation 635-200.  He cited the psychiatric evaluation that the applicant's personality disorder was so severe as to significantly impair his ability to adapt to and function in a military environment as the specific reason for this recommendation.  He stated the applicant's performance had been unsatisfactory during his assignment to the unit.

10.  On 5 November 1984, the XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg Jurisdictional Counsel reviewed the applicant's discharge proceedings under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, for legal sufficiency.  He stated the applicant was evaluated with a qualified psychiatrist who found that his personality disorder was so severe as to significantly impair his ability to adapt to the military.  The psychiatrist's recommendation makes it obvious that a change of unit would not solve the problems of the service member.  The applicant had not consulted with qualified legal counsel but had signed a waiver of his rights after being advised of them.  The file was determined to be legally sufficient.

11.  On 8 November 1984, the applicant's brigade commander approved a waiver of a rehabilitative transfer.  He further approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, and directed the issuance of an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

12.  On 21 November 1984, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, by reason of personality disorder.  His DD Form 214 shows he completed 1 year, 3 months, and 17 days of active duty service during this period.

13.  The applicant's separation package does not contain a copy of the psychiatric evaluation that precipitated his discharge and his medical records are not available for review with this case.  It is presumed that his medical records are on permanent loan to the VA.

14.  He provides an Internet article titled, "Demand Erupts for Probe of Hate Groups in the U.S. Military," dated 16 December 1995, describing an incident involving the murder of an African-American couple by three members of the 82d Airborne Division on 7 December 1995.  The applicant calls attention to the paragraph citing that the Southern Poverty Law Center sued the North Carolina White Patriot Party in 1985.  During that trial, a Soldier at Fort Bragg testified that he sold weaponry stolen from the fort's munitions depot to the White Patriot Party.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the force while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Soldiers for a variety of reasons.  Paragraph 5-13, in effect at the time, stated separation because of personality disorder was authorized only if the diagnosis concluded that the disorder was so severe that the member's ability to function effectively in the military environment was significantly impaired.  The service of a member separated per this paragraph would be characterized as honorable unless an entry-level separation was required.

16.  Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) governs medical fitness standards for enlistment, induction, appointment (including officer procurement programs), retention, and separation (including retirement).  Paragraph 3-35 states a history of or current manifestations of personality disorders render an individual administratively unfit rather than unfit because of physical illness or medical disability.  These conditions will be dealt with through administrative channels, including Army Regulation 635-200.

17.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his records should be corrected to show he was medically discharged for a personality disorder he developed as a result of the racially discriminating activity he was exposed to during his military service was carefully considered.

2.  The applicant's separation packet does not contain a copy of the psychiatric evaluation that precipitated his discharge and his medical records are not available for review with this case.  However, the psychiatric diagnosis of a personality disorder so severe as to significantly impair his ability to adapt to and function in a military environment is well documented in his chain of command's recommendation for separation.  The XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg Jurisdictional Counsel also confirmed that the applicant was evaluated by a qualified psychiatrist who found that his personality disorder was so severe as to significantly impair his ability to adapt to the military.

3.  The applicant's records do not contain and he has not provided any evidence of racially-motivated disciplinary actions or a racially-biased environment that caused or contributed to his personality disorder.  His records do show a history of indiscipline and an inability to adapt to the military environment.  He had ample opportunity to voice these concerns during his separation process and he elected not to do so.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, administrative regularity must be presumed.

4.  Army Regulation 40-501 prescribes that a history of or current manifestations of personality disorders render an individual administratively unfit rather than unfit because of physical illness or medical disability and will be dealt with through administrative channels.  Therefore, the applicant was appropriately discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, by reason of personality disorder.  He is not entitled to a medical discharge.



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 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)                                         AR20120002029



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120002029



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1