IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  11 December 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120010595 


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 a change of the narrative reason for separation shown on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

2.  She states she was honorably discharged with a narrative reason for separation of "personality disorder."  She states she was put on the anti-depressant Prozac that caused the opposite effect.  She states Prozac is medically proven to cause severe depression and suicidal tendencies.  She asks the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to remove the "personality disorder" entry.

3.  She provides:

* a letter from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) physician
* an American Heart Association (AHA) Healthcare Provider card
* a Maryland Police and Correctional Training Commissions certificate 
* a Certificate of Achievement 
* a certificate of induction into the Delta Epsilon Rho Honor Society
* a Commander in Chief, U.S. Pacific Command (USPACOM), Certificate of Commendation 
* a Department of the Army (DA) Certificate of Training 
* a U.S. Coast Guard Certificate of Discharge to Merchant Seaman


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 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.  With prior active service, on 2 February 1988, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  She was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty 91A (Medical Specialist).

3.  A DA Form 3647 (Inpatient Treatment Record Cover Sheet) shows she was admitted to Tripler Army Medical Center (TAMC), Honolulu, HI, on 18 August 1990 and returned to duty on 19 October 1990.  The form shows she was diagnosed with alcohol and nicotine dependence and "major depression, atypical."  This is the only document from her service medical record available for review.

4.  In an undated memorandum to the applicant, subject:  Pending Discharge Notification, her commander stated, in part:

"On or about the 6th week of your hospitalization in the Alcoholism Recovery Facility (6 weeks program [sic]), you experienced vague suicidal ideations and was [sic] diagnosed a typical [sic] depression.  Because of this, I authorized extension of your hospitalization to eight weeks."

"On or about 02 May 1991, you were seen in the Acute Care Clinic at Schofield Barracks.  During that time you told the attending physician that you had taken approximately 50 Prozac.  The doctor's assessment diagnosis was suicidal gesture.  Currently, you are hospitalized for psychiatric evaluation."

"According to [a Tri-Service Addictions Recovery Facility counselor], if any unacceptable behaviors develop they should be dealt with immediately utilizing appropriate non-medical directives and regulations."

"Because of your current personal problem, I will recommend you to be chaptered out of the U.S. Army, under [Army Regulation] 635-200 [Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel], Chapter 5, (5-13) for personality disorder."

5.  A handwritten note on the memorandum shows it was presented to the applicant on 16 May 1991 at TAMC.

6.  On 4 June 1991, her acting commander notified her of his intent to initiate action to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, and that he was recommending she receive an honorable discharge.  He stated the basis for his action was her being diagnosed with a personality disorder by a medically qualified physician.  On the same date, she acknowledged receipt of the notice.

7.  On 11 June 1991, she consulted with counsel, who advised her of the basis for her contemplated separation and its effects, the rights available to her, and the effect of a waiver of her rights.  

8.  After consulting with counsel, she elected to submit statements in her own behalf.  She waived counsel and consideration of her case by an administrative separation board.  The statements she submitted are not included in the available records.

9.  On 17 June 1991, the separation authority directed her honorable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, for personality disorder.  On 16 July 1991, she was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 she was issued at that time shows in:

* item 25 (Separation Authority) – "AR 635-200 PARA 5-13"
* item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – "PERSONALITY DISORDER"

10.  There is no indication she applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a change of the reason and authority for her discharge within that board's 15-year statute of limitations.

11.  She provides a letter from a VA physician, dated 23 April 2012.

	a.  The physician states the applicant would like to have the notation "personality disorder" removed from her DD Form 214 as it has created some difficulties in recent interviews for various jobs for which she was otherwise qualified.  She has been followed in a VA mental health clinic since May 2009 


and she has a diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder and panic disorder with agoraphobia.  He states that "during her time in the clinic, [she] has not displayed any symptoms that would be remotely [commensurate with] the coding of a personality disorder."  He concurs with removing the narrative reason for her separation.

	b.  He states he believes she was misdiagnosed with personality disorder and recommends a review of her service record to determine if symptoms of her current problems were present during her service and "just mislabeled."

12.  She also provides:

	a.  an American Heart Association Healthcare Provider card issued on 8 April 2010;

	b.  a Maryland Police and Correctional Training Commissions certificate showing she completed First Line Supervisor Training during the period
8 to 16 August 2005; 

	c.  a Certificate of Achievement for completing Substance Abuse Training for Supervisors on 10 May 2005;

	d.  a certificate dated 14 May 2004 showing she was inducted into the Delta Epsilon Rho Honor Society; 

	e.  a Commander in Chief, USPACOM, Certificate of Commendation, dated 20 March 1991, commending her contribution to the success of the Hawaii Area Joint Blood Program during mobilization to support Operation Desert Storm; and

	f.  a DA Certificate of Training showing she completed the 110-hour Emergency Medical Technician Course during the period 7 to 29 August 1989.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-13 of the version of the regulation in effect at the time of the applicant's discharge provided 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 diagnosis of personality disorder must have been established by a physician trained in psychiatry and psychiatric diagnosis.  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 and that the diagnosis concluded the disorder was so severe that the Soldier’s ability to function in the military environment was significantly impaired.  The regulation stated separation for personality disorder was not appropriate when separation was warranted under certain other provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Army Regulation 604-10 (Military Personnel Security Program), or Army Regulation 635-40. 

14.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the narrative reasons for separation to be entered in item 28 of DD Form 214.  The version in effect at the time of the applicant's discharge stated the narrative reason "personality disorder" was to be used for separations under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13.

15.  In 2004, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandated a change in the labeling of Prozac to include a warning that use of the drug could result in increases in suicidal thinking or behavior.  In 2005, the FDA published an alert warning that patients being treated with any type of antidepressant, including Prozac, could experience increases in suicidal thinking or behavior and should be observed closely for behavioral changes.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record does not support the applicant's request for a change of the narrative reason for separation shown on her DD Form 214.  

2.  The VA physician's assessment that the applicant was misdiagnosed has been carefully considered.  There is no documentary evidence upon which to determine whether or not she was misdiagnosed.  The available records show she was recommended for discharge after being diagnosed with a personality disorder by a competent, medically-qualified physician.

3.  She indicates Prozac may have caused behaviors that led to her diagnosis of personality disorder.  Unfortunately, the available records are insufficient to establish that behaviors caused by taking Prozac led to her diagnosis of personality disorder.

4.  All requirements of law and regulation were met during the applicant's discharge processing, her rights were fully protected throughout the separation process, and her DD Form 214 correctly shows the narrative reason for separation for the type of discharge she received.  There is no evidence showing error or injustice in the narrative reason for her separation.


5.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary 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 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)                                         AR20120010595



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120010595



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1