BOARD DATE:	  12 December 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130006530 


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, amendment of item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show "Schizophrenia."

2.  The applicant states, in effect, item 28 of his DD Form 214 states "Personality Disorder" and he was misdiagnosed.  He is presently diagnosed with "Schizophrenia."

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 December 1988.  He completed training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 94B (food service specialist).  He was advanced to pay grade E-2 on 1 September 1989.

3.  On 12 September 1989, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for willfully disobeying a lawful order from his superior noncommissioned officer.  

4.  A Psychiatric Evaluation, dated 6 September 1989, stated:

   a.  It was a self-referral by the applicant.  He was found to be alert and oriented.  His speech and thinking were normal.  He displayed a predominantly passive-aggressive personality style during the interview.  He endorsed no suicidal, assaultive, or homicidal ideation or intent.  His thoughts were logical and goal directed without looseness of associations or other evidence of a thought disorder.  

   b.  The examining psychiatrist diagnosed the applicant with a personality disorder within the meaning of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Separations), paragraph 5-13.  He found the applicant met the medical fitness standards for retention prescribed in Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3 and that there was no mental disease or defect which warranted disposition through medical channels.  He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command.

5.  On 13 September 1989, the applicant’s battery commander notified the applicant of his intent to separate him for Maladaptive Behavior under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, with an honorable discharge.  He advised the applicant of his rights.

6.  On 13 September 1989, after consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged the proposed separation action and its effects.  He waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

7.  On 13 September 1989, the applicant’s battery and battalion commanders recommended the applicant be separated for a personality disorder under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, with an honorable discharge.

8.  On 18 September 1989, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge.
9.  He was honorably discharged in pay grade E-1 on 13 October 1989, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5.  His DD Form 214 states in item 28 – "Personality Disorder."

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, specifies that a Soldier could be separated for personality disorders (not amounting to disability) that interferes with assignment or with performance of duty, when so disposed as indicated in the Soldier's ability to perform duty.  The diagnosis of personality disorder must have been established by a psychiatrist or doctoral-level clinical psychologist with necessary and appropriate professional credentials who is privileged to conduct mental health evaluations for the Department of Defense components.  When it is determined that separation under this paragraph is appropriate, the unit commander will take the actions specified in the notification procedure.  The service of a Soldier separated per this paragraph will be characterized as honorable unless an entry-level separation is required under chapter 3, section III.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows that during the applicant's service he underwent a psychiatric evaluation in which he was assessed and diagnosed with a personality disorder.  The evaluating psychiatrist opined that the applicant displayed a predominantly passive-aggressive personality style during the interview.  The evaluating psychiatrist opined that the applicant's diagnosis did not warrant discharge through medical channels and recommended the applicant be administratively separated from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5.

2.  The evidence shows he acknowledged the proposed elimination action to separate him for personality disorder under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, he waived his rights and elected not to submit statements in his own behalf. Therefore, the evidence clearly shows he understood the reason for discharge and the type of discharge that he would be issued.

3.  His separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  The reason for separation was appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.  

4.  He has failed to show the narrative reason for separation on his DD Form 214 is incorrect.  Therefore, he is not entitled to amendment of item 28 of his DD Form 214.

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)                                         AR20130006530





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130006530



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1