IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  18 June 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120018380 


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 the reason in item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be removed.

2.  The applicant states there was no such diagnosis at the time of her discharge.

3.  The applicant provides:

* her DD Form 214
* her discharge certificate
* a letter, dated 28 October 1997, from Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical and Regional Office Center, Wilmington, DE
* a letter, dated 14 February 2001, to Dr. Sarah H_____, from VA Medical and Regional Office Center, Wilmington, DE
* a treatment summary signed by Dr. Sarah H_____, Ph.D., Clinical Psychologist, VA Medical Center, Perry Point, MD
* an unsigned statement, dated 22 March 2001 from University of Pennsylvania Health System, Department of Psychiatry 
* a letter, dated 28 April 2011, Michelle W_________, Ph.D., Psychologist/Coordinator Trauma Services, Behavioral Health Services, Wilmington VA Medical Center
* two pages from a VA Rating Decision, dated 26 April 2012


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.  On 31 January 1963, at the age of 18, she enlisted in the Regular Army.  She completed basic combat training at Fort McClellan, AL.  She received “excellent” ratings in conduct and efficiency.

3.  She was assigned to the U.S. Army Medical Training Center, Fort Sam Houston, TX from 29 April to 23 June 1963 for advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 911 (Medical Specialist).  She received “excellent” ratings in conduct and efficiency.

4.  On 24 June 1963, she was assigned to the Medical Field Service School, Brooke Army Medical Center, Fort Sam Houston, TX for Phase I of the Operating Room Techniques Course (Basic).  She received an “excellent” rating in conduct and a “good (academic)” rating in efficiency.

5.  On 20 July 1963, she was assigned to Valley Forge General Hospital (VFGH), Phoenixville, PA as a student in Phase II of the Operating Room Techniques Course (Basic).  She received an “unsatisfactory” rating in conduct and a “satisfactory” rating in efficiency.

6.  On 6 September 1963, the Acting Education Coordinator recommended consideration be given to the elimination of the applicant from Phase II of the Operating Room Techniques Course for the following reasons:

* inability to grasp or apply the fundamentals of basic operating room techniques in her work performance after 10 weeks of supervised training 
* lack of interest and motivation for learning
* unacceptable military appearance, inappropriate civilian attire, unkempt personal appearance, improper completion of barracks details

7.  On 7 October 1963, a Summary of Social Service Activity was submitted by a first lieutenant (1LT), Medical Corps (MC), Clinical Social Work Officer.  She stated the applicant was referred to her on 28 August 1963 when she was removed from the operating room on-the-job training program due to reported inefficiency and lack of motivation.  She found the applicant tended to find the causative factors of unpleasant events outside of herself, blaming other individuals and the reality around her.

	a.  Selective background data revealed she came from a broken home where she lived with her father from the age of 3 until her enlistment in the Army.  The applicant described herself to be a good student, a popular girl in high school, the validity of which the 1LT questioned in view of her unrealistic thinking process and rich fantasies that the applicant had.

	b.  Diagnostically the applicant manifested extreme immaturity highlighted with an omnipotent attitude of "I can do no wrong."  In order to help the applicant grow emotionally by which she could become realistic with her behavior and adjustment to the society, the 1LT felt it would take long treatment which cannot be provided in the Army setting.

8.  On 10 October 1963, the Women’s Army Corps (WAC) commander, a captain, submitted a statement.

	a.  A report had been received that the applicant had been at the bowling area dressed in improper attire.  Further investigation revealed that her mode of attire and conduct was not only improper but also immodest and suggestive.

	b.  It was necessary in the following weeks for the applicant to be counseled and/or reprimanded by the executive officer, the first sergeant, and the barracks sergeant for:

* lack of personal cleanliness
* unacceptable military appearance 
* failure to perform barracks details
* missing bed check

	c.  The applicant had very seriously and dangerously involved herself with an undesirable element of the local community despite repeated warnings as to the choice of associates.

	d.  Every effort had been made to assist the applicant in her adjustment to the service, including the services of the Social Work Service.  It was felt that another attempt to work with the applicant would be a complete waste of time.
9.  On 10 October 1963, the applicant was seen by a captain, MC, a psychiatrist. After a careful history, physical, and mental examination the examiner found:

	a.  The diagnosis in this case was:  Passive aggressive personality; manifested by poor motivation, failure to perform details, unclean barracks area, and sexual involvement in the community.  Predisposition - moderate, some disturbance in early life.  Stress - minimal, routine duty.  Condition, Unchanged.  Impairment - non - Profile S-1.

	b.  This reaction is an immaturity reaction due to deficiencies in emotional and personality development of such a degree as to render the applicant unsuitable for further military service.

	c.  The applicant had no physical or mental disability sufficient to warrant separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40 a and b.

	d.  The applicant was mentally responsible both to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.

	e.  The applicant should be administratively separated from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209 (Unsuitability).

10.  On 11 October 1963, she accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for:

* violating the requirements of restriction
* failing to perform her barracks detail

11.  On 14 October 1963, the WAC Company Commander recommended the applicant be discharged from the service under the provisions of Army 635-209 because of unsuitability.  

12.  On 14 October 1963, the applicant acknowledged she had been counseled and advised of the basis for the action recommended by her commanding officer. She desired counsel and that her case be heard by a board of officers.

13.  On 1 November 1963, she accepted NJP for failing to report to her appointed place of duty.

14.  On 4 November 1963, an administrative discharge board was convened.  After carefully considering the evidence of record, the board found the applicant unsuitable for further military service.  The board recommended she be discharged for unsuitability with a general discharge under honorable conditions.
15.  On 12 November 1963, she was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209.  She completed 9 months and 12 days of active service that was characterized as under honorable conditions.  Item 11c (Reason and Authority) of her DD Form 214 contains the entry: "AR 635-209 SPN (Separation Program Number) 264."

16.  On 8 January 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded the characterization of her discharge to honorable.  Based on the change in the characterization of her service a new DD Form 214 (updated version) was issued with the following entries:

* Item 25 (Separation Authority) - AR 635-209
* Item 26 (Separation Code) - JMB
* Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) - Unsuitability - Personality Disorder

17.  The letter, dated 14 February 2001, to Dr. Sarah H_____ stated the applicant was first seen in the Vet Center on 9 July 1997 when she reported she was raped and beaten by three military servicemen while on active duty.

18.  Dr. H_____'s treatment summary states the applicant was referred to Trauma Services at the VA Mental Health Services for individual psychotherapy around issues arising from a sexual assault during her military service.  Her treatment began in April of 1999.  She provided a history of the applicant, provided by the applicant, and a history of her treatment since April 1999.  She stated the diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and Somatization Disorder were both supported.

19.  The statement, dated 22 March 2001 from University of Pennsylvania Health System, Department of Psychiatry indicated the applicant was a participant in a study providing free evaluation and treatment for women suffering chronic PTSD as the result of rape or violent non-sexual assault.  She was referred to the program by the VA for problems related to a violent rape she suffered at age 18 by three male strangers who abducted her from her Army base.

20.  In a letter, dated 28 April 2011, Michelle W_________, Ph.D., states the applicant had been in psychotherapy with her since 12 August 2007.  The applicant is seen in treatment for symptoms related to PTSD (military sexual  trauma) and depression both in individual and group psychotherapy.

21.  The partial VA Rating Decision, dated 26 April 2012, indicates the applicant was assigned a 50 per cent disability rating for PTSD.

22.  Army Regulation 635-209 (Unsuitability), in effect at the time, set forth the policy and prescribed procedures for eliminating enlisted personnel for unsuitability. Action would be taken to discharge an individual for unsuitability only when, in the commander's opinion, it was clearly established that:  the individual was unlikely to develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier or the individual's psychiatric or physical condition was such as to not warrant discharge for disability.  Unsuitability included character and behavior disorders and disorders of intelligence and transient personality disorders due to acute or special stress.  Evaluation by a medical officer was required and, when psychiatric indications were involved, the medical officer must have been a psychiatrist, if one was available.  A general or an honorable discharge was considered appropriate.  

23.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) was revised on 1 December 1976, following settlement of a civil suit. Thereafter, the type of discharge and the character of service were to be determined solely by the individual's military record during the current enlistment.  Further, any separation for unsuitability, based on personality disorder must include a diagnosis of a personality disorder made by a physician trained in psychiatry.  In connection with these changes, a Department of the Army Memorandum dated 14 January 1977, and better known as the Brotzman Memorandum, was promulgated.  It required retroactive application of revised policies, attitudes and changes in reviewing applications for upgrade of discharges based on personality disorders. 

24.  A second memorandum, dated 8 February 1978, and better known as the Nelson Memorandum, expanded the review policy and specified that the presence of a personality disorder diagnosis would justify upgrade of a discharge to fully honorable except in cases where there are "clear and demonstrable reasons" why a fully honorable discharge should not be given.  Conviction by general court-martial or by more than one special court-martial was determined to be "clear and demonstrable reasons" which would justify a less than fully honorable discharge.

25.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) governs the preparation of the DD Form 214.  

	a.  The regulation in effect at the time of her discharge stated:

		(1)  The SPN "264" as shown on the applicant’s DD Form 214 specified the narrative reason for discharge as "Character and behavior disorders" and that the authority for discharge under this separation program designator was "AR 635-209."

 		(2)  The authority for discharge was to be entered in item 11c of the 
DD Form 214 followed by the SPN and descriptive reason for discharge.  However, the regulation also provided specific reasons that would not be stated in words on the DD Form 214.  Among those reasons specified was "any other reason involving mental or moral issues upon which the discharge of the individual may be predicated."

	b.  The regulation in effect at the time her discharge was upgraded provided the following instructions for completion of the DD Form 214:

		(1)  Item 25 - Enter the regulatory or statutory authority cited in directives authorizing separation.

		(2)  Item 26 - Enter the proper separation program designator (SPD) representing the reason for separation.

		(3)  Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) - Enter the reason for separation based on the regulatory or statutory authority.

	c.  A DD Form 214 may be reissued when:

    		(1)  directed by proper appellate authority, Executive Order, or by the Secretary of the Army; or

			(2)  the character of service is to be changed.

		d.  When a DD Form 214 is administratively issued or reissued the entry: 
"DD FORM 214 ADMINISTRATIVELY ISSUED/REISSUED ON (date)" will be entered in Item 18 (Remarks) on all copies unless the appellate authority, Executive Order, or the Secretary of the Army directive specifies otherwise. 

26.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes), in effect at the time her discharge was upgraded, prescribed the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated reasons.  The regulation shows that the separation program designator "JMB" as shown on the applicant’s DD Form 214 specified the narrative reason for discharge was "Unsuitability - Personality Disorder" and that the authority for discharge under this separation program designator was 
"Para 13-4b, AR 635-200)."



DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was diagnosed by an Army psychiatrist with a passive aggressive personality.  Therefore, the reason for her discharge was correct.

2.  The ADRB upgraded the characterization of the applicant's discharge; however, the reason for her discharge was not changed.  When her 
DD Form 214 was reissued in 1981, the SPD and narrative reason for separation were erroneously based on regulations in effect at the time of her upgrade  instead of regulations in effect at the time of her discharge.  

3.  The correct separation code in effect at the time of her discharge is "264."  Based on the reason for her discharge, the regulation in effect at the time of her discharge specifically stated the reason would not be stated in words on the 
DD Form 214.  Therefore, it would be equitable to reissue her a DD Form 214 showing the correct separation code and not showing the narrative reason for her discharge.

4.  In view of the above, it is appropriate to reissue a new DD Form 214 with the following entries:

* Item 18 (Remarks) - DD FORM 214 ADMINISTRATIVELY REISSUED ON (date)
* Item 25 - Army Regulation 635-209
* Item 26 - 264
* Item 28 - Intentionally left blank

BOARD VOTE:

____x___  ____x___  ____x___  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing her a new DD Form 214 with the following entries:
* Item 18 - add the entry: "DD FORM 214 ADMINISTRATIVELY REISSUED ON (date)"
* Item 25 - Army Regulation 635-209
* Item 26 - 264
* Item 28 - enter: "Intentionally left blank"




      _______ _   __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)                                         AR20120018380



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120018380



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1