BOARD DATE:	  18 June 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130002325 


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 her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show the narrative reason for her separation as medical discharge for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) instead of personality disorder.

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  She joined the Army in 2001.  In February of 2002, she left for basic training.  In August 2002, she arrived at her unit in Hanau, Germany.  Her chain of command during this time was constantly telling her what an outstanding Soldier she was.  She worked hard and did everything they told her to do; they had no complaints.  She even broke records for performing her job accurately and quickly.  She also qualified as Expert with the M-16 rifle.  She loved being in the Army; her plan was to make a career of it.  Then in late November 2002, a noncommissioned officer (NCO) in another battery tried to rape her.  She was able to fight him off long enough for someone to overhear her screaming, at which point the NCO fled.  She went to her NCO and informed him that she had been attacked.  At the time she felt she could trust him.  He told her to write it all down as soon as possible and then he'd find out what the chain of command wanted her to do.  A few hours later he informed her that she was to go see the Equal Opportunity (EO) NCO and file a sworn statement per her platoon sergeant's instructions.  She filed a report through the EO NCO per her chain of command's instructions.  The EO NCO kept her handwritten copy and typed up a sworn statement and told her she could get a copy from her first sergeant.  Several days later, her first sergeant called her into his office where he told her to "forget about it, it never happened," then he proceeded to shred the report.  She was never given any copies.  She sank into a major depression and had to begin seeking treatment at the mental health clinic which diagnosed her with major depression.

	b.  During this time, her chain of command's view of her suddenly changed drastically.  No matter what she did, she was treated as if she were the worst Soldier there.  Her counseling statements began reflecting this as well.  At one point in December, they even counseled her for malingering for seeking help.  In December 2002, she was diagnosed with pneumonia and placed on quarters (sick in quarters).  Her first sergeant decided he wanted her to guard trucks at Campo Pond (there was a snow storm going on at the time as well).  She told him she was placed on quarters because she had pneumonia.  He told her he didn't care and that there was a building out there where she could serve her quarters.  At 5 a.m., those who were on guard duty were kicked out of the buildings and forced to stand outside in the snow and 20-degree weather.  This caused her condition to get much worse and last for much longer than it should have.  At the very end of December 2002, they were sent to Israel for what later turned into a 6-month deployment.  During the deployment, the treatment she received by her chain of command was so severe she attempted suicide.  She also went to her chain of command several times about harassment from one of her fellow Soldiers.  She informed them that if they didn't do something to get him to stop the harassment, she would be forced to take matters into her own hands. 
Their answer to this was to discipline her for threatening another Soldier and to take her weapon from her.  They never did stop the harassment by the other Soldier.  At the beginning of June when they returned to Germany, her NCO began to give her numerous negative counseling statements.  He informed her that her first sergeant wanted to build up enough evidence to discharge her for a pattern of misconduct.

	c.  Shortly after that, in mid-June 2003, she was injured and almost severed her spinal cord.  After this, she was issued a physical profile for a while restricting her from wearing any gear.  She informed her chain of command of her physical profile and they told her they would remove her from the guard duty roster.  This did not happen.  On 9 July 2003, they attempted to give her an Article 15 for dereliction of duty.  They held the hearing late on 11 July 2003 and gave her no opportunity to see a lawyer.  The Article 15 was thrown out by her commander because her platoon leader/lieutenant had written the exact date and time that she had fulfilled notifying the chain of command of her physical profile in her book.

	d.  On 15 July 2003 within 4 days of them failing to give her an Article 15, she was notified that she would be discharged from the service for a personality disorder under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 5-13.  She admits that she was ready to get out of the service by this point.  She was very depressed because of the lack of action on her sexual assault.  She was also in severe back pain.  They informed her that they would make her life a living hell if she tried to fight her discharge.  Once she told them she would accept it, they finally gave her some peace and left her alone.  She stopped receiving any counseling statements except for the ones telling her she was a high-risk Soldier and should be safe when driving.  On 17 November 2003, her birthday, she was finally told that she would be leaving the service as of 22 November 2003.

	e.  She fully believes she was discharged for a personality disorder in retaliation for reporting the sexual assault.  Today her chain of command would not be able to take this action because the assault occurred within 12 months of her discharge.  She deals with the effects of PTSD on a daily basis now.  She has nightmares and flashbacks of the attack.  Had she not been punished for reporting the assault, chances are good that she could have recuperated and remained in the service.  Instead, her command chose to cover up the assault and punish her for reporting it.

3.  The applicant provides:

* self-authored time line of events
* Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form)

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 she enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 February 2002 and she held military occupational specialty 14T (Patriot Missile Crewmember).  She was assigned to Battery C, 5th Battalion, 7th Air Defense Artillery, Germany.

3.  She was frequently counseled for various infractions, including disrespect and insubordination, failing to follow instructions, malingering, misleading an NCO, and communicating a threat against another Soldier.

4.  On 3 July 2003, she underwent a mental status evaluation at the Hanau Health Clinic, Germany.  The Mental Health Clinic Chief noted her resistant behavior, fully alert/oriented level of alertness/orientation, euthymic mood, linear thought process, fair memory, and no psychosis or suicidal or homicidal ideation. The mental status evaluation shows:

	a.  Diagnosis.  She was diagnosed as having a borderline personality disorder and recurrent major depressive disorder in full remission.

	b.  Findings.  She exhibited marked lability of mood and recurrent suicidal ideation requiring psychological treatment down-range.  She had experienced a recurrent depressive episode that appeared to be largely reactive to stressors from her environment mitigated by her maladaptive coping mechanism and interpersonal style.  Although she met the criteria for a major depressive episode at one time, her depression had nearly resolved with treatment and was not a significant factor in her recommendation for separation.  She met retention standards as there was no psychiatric defect or disease to warrant a medical board.  However, administrative separation was recommended.

	c.  Recommendations.  She was psychiatrically cleared for administrative action deemed appropriate by the chain of command, her psychiatric factors indicated that administrative separation would be in the best interests of the applicant and the Army, and a waiver of rehabilitative efforts was recommended.

5.  On 6 August 2003, she underwent a second mental status evaluation at the Hanau Health Clinic, Germany.  The Mental Health Clinic Chief noted her resistant behavior, fully alert/oriented level of alertness/orientation, depressed and angry mood, linear thought process, fair memory, and no psychosis or suicidal or homicidal ideation.  The mental status evaluation shows:

	a.  Diagnosis.  She was diagnosed as having a borderline personality disorder and unspecified recurrent major depressive disorder.

	b.  Findings.  She met retention standards as there was no psychiatric defect or disease to warrant a medical board.  However, administrative separation was recommended.

	c.  Recommendations.  She was psychiatrically cleared for administrative action deemed appropriate by the chain of command, psychiatric factors indicated administrative separation would be in the best interests of the applicant and the Army, and a waiver of rehabilitative efforts was recommended.

6.  On 15 October 2003, the applicant's immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, because of personality disorder and major depressive disorder.  He recommended an honorable characterization of service.

7.  On 15 October 2003, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of separation action.  She consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation and of the rights available to her in connection with the action.  Subsequent to receiving legal counsel, the applicant elected not to submit statements in her own behalf.

8.  Subsequent to this acknowledgement, the immediate commander initiated separation action against the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, by reason of personality disorder.  Her intermediate commander recommended approval.

9.  On 12 November 2003, the separation authority approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, by reason of personality disorder and directed an honorable characterization of service.  On 22 November 2003, the applicant was discharged accordingly.

10.  Her DD Form 214 shows she was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13.  She completed 1 year, 9 months, and 11 days of active service.  She was assigned the separation code "JFX."

11.  She submitted a copy of her VA Rating Decision, dated 10 March 2009, which shows she was awarded service-connected disability compensation for PTSD at the rate of 70 percent effective 14 January 2009.

12.  An advisory opinion was obtained from the Office of the Surgeon General (OTSG), Director of Health Care Delivery, dated 7 May 2013, in connection with the processing of this case.  The OTSG official states the applicant requested that her narrative reason for discharge for a personality disorder be changed to PTSD.  Conclusions for this advisory opinion are drawn solely based on available documentation from the applicant's time in active service unless otherwise noted.

	a.  From 27 November 2002 through 22 September 2003, the applicant was treated by a psychologist and psychiatrist with therapy and Prozac (fluoxetine) for recurrent major depressive disorder and borderline personality disorder.  She initially sought counseling stating, "I am here because of depression."  The note recorded her being new at the installation and her history of significant events in her life.  At intake, the psychologist diagnosed her recurrent major depressive disorder, "rule out PTSD," and personality disorder (not otherwise specified (NOS)) with borderline traits.  During her early treatment, it was recommended the applicant not carry a weapon and she stated she worried if she were to carry a weapon she might shoot someone "if they get on my nerves."  Further, she disclosed having been raped twice approximately 5 years prior – before she joined the Army – and often thinking about it and having nightmares about it.  The frequency of the nightmares was not noted.  No avoidance symptoms were documented, and PTSD was not diagnosed.  Available notes do not refer to the reported attempted assault or related consequences, so the impact of that event cannot be addressed in this advisory opinion.  The previous sentence is not intended to question the veracity of the allegation, merely to state it was not documented in her treatment notes.  Deployed to Israel for an estimated four months, she was seen weekly by an Israeli psychologist who reportedly expressed concerns about her personality disorder to her commander.

	b.  Upon her return, she continued her treatment and her depression was noted to be improved but with an increase in anxiety symptoms.  She was diagnosed with panic disorder with agoraphobia (fear of crowds, bridges, or of being outside alone).  She related she had discontinued her Prozac "some months ago" because of confusion over which medication was prescribed.  She stated that during the deployment she took six of her Prozac because it did not seem to be working, and indicated to both providers that it was not an intentional overdose.  She also referred to this incident in a 2007 VA visit as an "accidental overdose."  In her submitted timeline, she described this as a suicide attempt.  Regardless, it appeared to be an impulsive act.  The psychologist noted the applicant appeared to struggle with meeting basic performance expectations.  Administrative separation was considered given additional information with regard to acting-out behavior and her difficulty coping with her current demands.  She disclosed that she used to burn herself when she was younger although she no longer used self-injurious behaviors to cope with her feelings of frustration.  She expressed fear concerning her fiancé leaving in September and seemed to have challenges in her interpersonal relationships, though her relationship with her fiancé appeared stable.  The psychologist noted her behavior and disclosure of earlier behaviors, patterns, and traits was "highly suggestive of a stress-exacerbated emersion of underlying characterological influences."  She reportedly agreed that an administrative separation would be best for everyone.  The psychologist explained the long-term characteristics of personality disorder and the treatment limitations.  She agreed she would likely have less difficulty functioning in a less stressful environment than the Army.

	c.  Over the course of treatment, her depressive and anxiety symptoms were reported to decrease.  Later in treatment, the psychologist described improved depressive symptoms and noted she displayed no clinical evidence of anxiety. The psychologist addressed questions she voiced about her personality disorder and noted she appeared satisfied with the explanations.  Her depression was deemed to be in full remission with medication.  The 6 August 2003 Report of Mental Status Evaluation memorandum for her commander listed Borderline personality disorder and stated her depressive disorder in full remission "has nearly resolved with treatment and is not a significant factor in recommendation for separation."  A later treatment note recommended her continuation on Prozac indefinitely given her history of at least three episodes of major depressive disorder.  The psychiatrist also discussed with her how Prozac had improved her irritability and reactivity, which were explained as part of her personality disorder.

	d.  The specific criteria for a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder are not clearly articulated in the notes, though the record suggested a thoughtful consideration of the clinical picture.  There is sufficient evidence to support a diagnosis of personality disorder (NOS) with borderline traits as she disclosed both long-term and, at the time, current challenges in her coping style and interpersonal relationships.  PTSD is an anxiety disorder and her anxiety at the time of her discharge did not appear to reach the level of a diagnosis.  This does not preclude the development of PTSD at a later date.

13.  On 6 June 2013, she responded to the advisory opinion.

	a.  In response to item 3 of the advisory opinion, she makes the following comments:

		(1)  She began mental health treatment on 19 December 2002 as per the report dated 6 August 2003.  This report states she began treatment on 27 November 2002.  The first timeline she submitted had an estimated date of the assault as 28 November 2002.  She could not recall the exact date as it has been 10 years.  It was not until 27 March 2013 when she found her original handwritten and dated statement.  She was able to confirm the actual date of assault as 14 October 2002.  She was not diagnosed with borderline personality disorder until July 2003.  When she began initial treatment, she was only diagnosed with major depression.  Without access to her mental health records, she cannot provide documentation to back that up.

		(2)  Her weapon was taken by her chain of command, not a mental health professional.  She had been dealing with repeated harassment and had gone to her chain of command on more than one occasion about the harassment.  She never once said she would ever shoot someone for "getting on my nerves."  She did however inform her chain of command that the harassment was getting to the point where she felt like she was going to need to defend herself.  Instead of stopping the harassment, her weapon was taken and she was given a negative counseling statement.

		(3)  Regarding her disclosure of being raped prior to joining the military, she had been raped twice prior to joining the service.  Once in September 1997 and the second time in December 1997.  She never reported either incident.  She was upfront about this with the therapist because she had already overcome those assaults.  She could have overcome the assault.  She could not understand the breach of trust when she reported the assault and her first sergeant made the choice to shred it and tell her to forget about it.  That betrayal is what haunts her still.

		(4)  While she was in Israel from January 2003 until May 2003, she was briefly treated by an Israeli psychiatrist.  She saw him roughly a total of four to five times.  This began after the 14 February 2003 overdose.  During several of these appointments which took place in Tel Aviv, her squad leader, Sergeant E____, and once her platoon sergeant, Staff Sergeant B____, came to the appointments as well and sat outside the door.  They never spoke to the therapist there.

	b.  In response to item 4 of the advisory opinion, she makes the following comments:

		(1)  She strongly disagrees with the statement "could not meet basic performance expectations."  Staff Sergeant S____, who was the incoming platoon sergeant to Battery C from July 2003 until she left in November, knew her from before the assault.  He knew her as a hard worker who never complained.  During advanced individual training in 2002, she had to go through an emergency appendectomy.  Three and a half weeks after having surgery, she took and passed a physical fitness test so she could graduate from advanced individual training.  When she first got to her unit and she got her new crew partner, Private First Class K____, they broke the battalion crew drill record. She knew her job, she loved her job, and she was good at it.  She was looking forward to a long career and to one day having Soldiers of her own and being a great leader like her dad was.  Even after everything happened, she continued to do everything required.  Her back injury began after she carried the chains for the launchers roughly 100 yards.  The chains weigh over 100 pounds.

		(2)  The period of time she had described to the therapist as the time she "burned" herself was between the first and second rape, the extent of which was holding a warm lighter to her skin.

		(3)  She expressed fear about her fiancé leaving because she was afraid of her chain of command by then.  Battery A's first sergeant had already made attempts to try to pull her over to his battery to help save her career and her first sergeant refused to let her go.  She was not sure what else her chain of command would attempt to do to her.  The agreement that separation would be best was simply because she had already been threatened by her chain of command on multiple occasions that if she didn't accept the discharge they would do everything possible to make her life hell.  Her fiancé then, is now her husband.  They married on 20 August 2004.  He was in Battery A at the time.

	c.  In response to item 5 of the advisory opinion, she states she was never screened for a personality disorder or PTSD until years later by the VA in 2007.  She was diagnosed with severe PTSD and has been deemed unemployable due to service-connected PTSD.

	d.  She hopes this helps clarify any questions the Board may have in regard to the advisory opinion provided by OTSG.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) prescribes the policy for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-13 provides for separating members by reason of personality disorder (not amounting to disability) that interferes with assignment or with performance of duty.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request to change the narrative reason for separation has been carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation that led to a diagnosis of a personality disorder.  Accordingly, her chain of command initiated separation action against her.  Her separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

3.  The evidence of record contains two mental status evaluations completed on the applicant that confirm a diagnosis of personality disorder not amounting to disability was made by proper medical authority.  That medical authority would not have been part of her chain of command, and there is no evidence to show her chain of command would have/could have influenced that medical authority into compromising his medical findings.  The records are void of any indication that the applicant was suffering from an unfitting PTSD condition at the time of her discharge.  As confirmed by the OTSG advisory opinion, there is insufficient medical evidence to support an unfitting PTSD finding at the time of her discharge.

4.  The applicant’s experiences with her chain of command are deeply regrettable; however, absent any evidence of error or injustice in the separation process or medical evidence confirming the applicant was suffering from an unfitting PTSD condition at the time of her discharge, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support 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 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)                                         AR20130002325



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130002325



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1