BOARD DATE:	 7 May 2014 

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130020261 


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 reconsideration of her request for 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 she has obtained new evidence that was not previously considered and she has one final argument in support of her request.  She submits her entire enlistment history, a correct and accurate timeline of important events, and documents that support those dates so the record can finally be completely accurate.

3.  The applicant provides a list of enclosures that identifies 15 exhibits and she offers her comments on the significance of each exhibit.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20130002325 on 18 June 2013.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 February 2002 and she was awarded military occupational specialty 14T (Patriot Missile Crewmember).  She was assigned to Battery C, 5th Battalion, 7th Air Defense Artillery, Germany, on 16 August 2002.
3.  On 3 July 2003, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation at the Hanau Health Clinic, Germany.  She was diagnosed as having Borderline Personality Disorder, recurrent, unspecified.  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.

4.  On 6 August 2003, the applicant underwent a second mental status evaluation at the Hanau Health Clinic, Germany.  She was diagnosed as having Borderline Personality Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent, full remission.  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.

5.  The applicant's immediate commander initiated separation action against her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-13, by reason of personality disorder.  The applicant 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.

6.  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 discharge.

7.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows she was honorably discharged on 
22 November 2003 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13.  She was assigned the separation code "JFX" (personality disorder, not amounting to disability).

8.  The applicant submitted a request to the ABCMR for correction of the separation code recorded on her DD Form 214 to prevent recoupment of her enlistment bonus.  On 16 August 2005, the ABCMR determined that the separation code "JFX" is proper and in accordance with regulatory provisions.  Accordingly, her request was denied.

9.  The applicant submitted a request to the ABCMR for correction of the narrative reason for separation recorded on her DD Form 214 from personality disorder to physical disability due to a back injury.  On 9 January 2007, the ABCMR determined the medical evidence indicates that she was medically fit for retention at the time of her separation and there was no available evidence that any medical authority considered her to have been permanently unable to perform duty.  Accordingly, her request was denied.

10.  The applicant submitted a request to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for correction of the narrative reason for separation recorded on her 
DD Form 214 from personality disorder to physical disability (PTSD) because she was sexually assaulted by a noncommissioned officer (NCO).  The ADRB found there was insufficient evidence to support the applicant's contentions and, on 
2 November 2012, the ADRB determined that her discharge was both proper and equitable.  Accordingly, her request was denied.

11.  In support of her request for reconsideration the applicant provides the following new evidence:

   a.  A copy of her original handwritten statement (with a typed transcript of the statement) that has enabled her to remember the basic details of the assault that took place on 14 October 2002.  The applicant states she found the statement on 27 March 2013. 

    	(1)  It shows Sergeant F----- approached her at about 1050 hours while she was working on [barracks] floors.  They talked casually and he made flirtatious comments, leaned very close to her, repeatedly tried to touch her knees, tried to tickle her, and then reached down and grabbed her inner thigh near her crotch.  She pulled away and told him to "knock it off 'cause it wasn't appropriate."  She wanted a cigarette and asked him if he wanted a cigarette.  He answered in the affirmative, she opened her room and went in, and he followed her.  He asked if he could close the door and she said no.  He asked if he could sit on the bed and she said yes.  She sat in plain view of the open door and they smoked their cigarettes.  She got up to go back to work.  She also wrote, "I had to get back to work, he grabbed me and tried to pull me close.  I tried to push him away and he grabbed me again and said something about me not wanting a hug."  She again told him she needed to get to work and "he finally left very promptly." [End of Statement.]

    	(2)  She also recounts her reporting of the incident as discussed in the original consideration of her case.

   b.  The applicant's new argument corresponds to the 15 exhibits and is as follows:

* from the first day of her enlistment, the rules were explained to her and she followed them
* on an unspecified date, she was recommended for promotion to private first class (PFC), effective 11 February 2003; however, for unknown reasons, her promotion was held up until 23 March 2003
* on 14 February 2003, she received medical treatment for a possible drug overdose
* on 28 February 2003, she was counseled on her poor job performance and for having problems with fellow Soldiers in the platoon -- the reverse of the document does not show any signatures 
* on 15 March 2003, she was counseled for communicating a threat to a Soldier -- the document shows she agreed with the counseling
* she now asserts that she had previously reported that the Soldier was harassing her and she requested assistance from her chain of supervision -- however, instead of helping her, the NCO punished her for coming forward
* on 3 July 2003, she was diagnosed with Personality Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent, unspecified
* on 9 July 2003, she was counseled for missing guard duty (on 5 July 2003) and informed that she was being recommended for a Summarized Article 15 
* the document shows she agreed with the counseling and also entered the remark -- "I did not receive any phone calls on the date of the duty and had no identification"  
* on 15 July 2003, she was counseled on the initiation of separation proceedings based on personality disorder -- the document shows she agreed with the counseling
* on 6 August 2003, she was diagnosed with Personality Disorder and Major Depressive Disorder, recurrent, full remission
* on 5 October 2010, in response to an inquiry on behalf of the applicant, a Congressional Coordinator, Congressional Inquiry Division, responded to the Honorable Michael B------, United States Senator
* he informed the senator, at the time, the applicant was referred by the battalion physician assistant for a condition not then known to the first sergeant (1SG) due to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability privacy law
* he indicated that at no time did the applicant ever bring to the 1SG's attention that she was sexually assaulted; if a sexual assault would have been reported to the 1SG he would have reported it to the military police immediately in accordance with policies and regulations
* in addition, the supporting Equal Opportunity (EO) office conducted a thorough search for past records covering EO complaints submitted to the battalion during fiscal year 2002; however, no records concerning this allegation were found 

12.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, 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.

13.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.  

   a.  In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating in such a way as to reasonably fulfill the purposes of his/her employment on active duty.

   b.  Chapter 3 (Policies) provides that when a member is being separated by reason other than physical disability, his/her continued performance of duty creates a presumption of fitness which can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that he/she was unable to perform his/her duties or that acute grave illness or injury or other deterioration of physical condition occurring immediately prior to or coincident with separation rendered the member unfit.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends her request for correction of her discharge to show she was medically discharged based on PTSD should be reconsidered because she recently located her original handwritten statement that enabled her to remember the details of the assault that took place on 14 October 2002.

2.  The applicant's new evidence and argument were carefully considered.  However, she submits insufficient evidence to show an assault occurred during her military service that led to a diagnosis of PTSD.  Furthermore, she provides no corroborating evidence of such an assault or a correlating diagnosis of PTSD or that she was ever incapable of performing her duties.

3.  There is no evidence of record that shows the applicant's conditions for which she was discharged were medically unfitting.  In fact, the evidence of record shows the applicant was cleared for administrative separation.

4.  Records show the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, by reason of personality disorder was administratively correct and in compliance with applicable regulations in effect at the time.  In addition, the narrative reason and the separation code entered on her DD Form 214 are both proper and correct.

5.  In view of all of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for 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 that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20130002325, dated 18 June 2013.



      __________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)                                         AR20130020261



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130020261



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1