IN THE CASE OF:     

		BOARD DATE:	17 March 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140018068 


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 narrative reason for her discharge (Personality Disorder) be changed to “Medical” and that her records be submitted to a medical evaluation board (MEB)/physical evaluation board (PEB) for consideration for a medical retirement.

2.  The applicant states she served honorably and with distinction on active duty in combat on two tours in Iraq and completed numerous convoy missions during which she was the driver on the lead gun truck. 

	a.  She witnessed numerous incidents involving forcing local national vehicles off the convoy route and forcing the local nationals to crash, injuring them and destroying their property.  She also witnessed numerous detonations of vehicle-borne explosive devices and improvised explosive devices (IED) which injured or killed scores of people and destroyed untold amounts of equipment and property.  In addition, she witnessed the horrifying and bloody aftermath of those same events.

	b. Consequently, she feared for her life before, during and after every convoy mission.  When she returned from her last deployment and began having emotional issues related to her experiences in Iraq, she was diagnosed by the army with a "Personality Disorder" and promptly separated from the Army that she had volunteered to serve in and was proud to be a part of.

	c.   When she returned home to her family and friends, she immediately continued to have emotional problems and sought care for those issues at the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).  She was soon diagnosed with combat-related post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) by the VA.

	d.  She filed a VA Service-Connected Disability Compensation claim on 5 July 2005 for combat-related PTSD.  She was initially rated by the VA at 100% for PTSD with an effective date of 25 June 2005 (the day after the date of her discharge from the Army).  This is prima facie evidence that her Army diagnosis of "personality disorder" was faulty, erroneous, and most of all, lacking compassionate treatment of a combat veteran.

	e.  It is also direct evidence that she did not receive the proper screening for combat-related PTSD that has been mandatory in the Army since May 2008.  Since the VA has provided the correct and just diagnosis of her condition, and with current and on-going treatment of her condition by the VA, she is more aware of her condition and how it affects her everyday life. 

	f.  If the Army were more compassionate and different in their diagnosis, a resultant disability retirement would have mitigated or prevented the PTSD difficulties.

3  The applicant provides copies of:

* four Columbia County (Wisconsin) Veterans Services letters
* her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* Army Review Boards Agency letter, dated 2 October 2014
* DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States, dated 16 June 2014
* Department of the Air Force Review Boards Office letter, dated 26 August 2014
* Army Review Boards Agency letter, dated 15 August 2012
* Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army, Manpower and Reserve Affairs letter, dated 1 May 2012
* VA Rating Decision, dated 6 October 2008
* Chapter 13 discharge documentation

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 2 October 2002.  She held military occupational specialty 88M (Motor Transport Operator).

3.  A MEDCOM Form 699-R (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), signed by a U.S. Navy Psychiatrist, states:

	a.  [The applicant] was referred for evaluation by her command due to acute emotional crisis in the setting of her boyfriend being injured on convoy.  She was overwhelmed and distraught, and it was felt best that this individual sleep in the hospital for a couple of nights with the aid of medication.  Upon further evaluation, it became apparent that this stressor was the culminating stressor of a series of difficulties [the applicant] has had with her command and with her functioning in the military.  Her reported history, and the history from the command, revealed a long-term pattern of interpersonal difficulties that have severely impacted her ability to perform adequately as a soldier.  Behaviors include inappropriate and intense outbursts of anger, affective instability, impulsivity, stress-related paranoid ideation, self-mutilating behavior, manipulation and splitting."

	b.  Diagnosis:  

* Axis I:  Adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotion and conduct
* Axis II:  Borderline Personality Disorder

	c.  "The diagnosis, as shown above, represents a personality disorder within the meaning of ICD-9, AR 40-501, AR 635-200, and DSM IV."

	d.  "The condition on Axis I does not represent a severe mental disease or defect for the purposes warranting a disposition through medical channels and meets the retention standards prescribed in Chapter 3 AR 40-501."

	e.  The individual was and is mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right and has the mental capacity to understand and participate in administrative proceedings.

4.  Her immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate action to separate her under Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), Chapter 5, paragraph 5-13 because of Personality Disorder.  The commander stated the applicant had been diagnosed with adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotion and conduct and a borderline personality disorder.  The commander recommended the applicant receive an honorable discharge.

5.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation notification memorandum, waived her right to consult with counsel, and indicated she would not submit a statement in her own behalf.

6.  Subsequent to this acknowledgement, the applicant's immediate commander recommended separation. 

7.  On 27 May 2005, consistent with the chain of command's recommendations, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge and directed her service be characterized as honorable.

8.  She was honorably discharged on 24 June 2005, as a specialist/E-4 due to  personality disorder.  She had completed 2 years, 8 months, and 23 days of active duty service. 

9.   She provides copies of:

	a.  Theater Medical Registry Records showing she was seen on:

		(1)  20 May 2005 because she was distraught after learning her boyfriend/fiancé was wounded in action in an IED blast while in a convoy.  He was in the same company, but a different platoon.  She was also a convoy driver.  She stated she "Can't go back" and "needs to find out how he is."  She remained two nights on the ward for combat stress.  Her provider spoke to her command which revealed long-standing challenges with her, particularly in constant manipulation.  She was determined to be "Psychiatrically fit for duty; however, she may not be suitable for continued military service."

		(2)  23 May 2005 for issues with her left knee and left ankle.  She was having stress reaction to her injured boyfriend.  She was released with comments stating, in part, "No convoy, no access to weapons and no night duties.

		(3)  24 May 2005 for a follow-up to the previous day.  She was released with the comments "No convoys, no access to weapons…"

	b.   a VA Rating Decision, dated 6  October 2008 showing she had been granted service connection for PTSD, major depressive disorder with a disability rating of 100%.  

10.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), paragraph 3-1, provides that the mere presence of impairment does not, of itself, justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability.  In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the member reasonably may be expected to perform because of his or her office, rank, grade or rating.

11.  Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, provides disability retirement or separation for a member who is physically unfit to perform the duties of her office, rank, grade or rating because of disability incurred while entitled to basic pay.

12.  Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 310 and 331, permit the VA to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service.  The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned.  Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not considered physically unfit for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge, or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant has submitted insufficient evidence to prove her assertion that a medical discharge/retirement is warranted.

2.  There is no evidence that she did not meet medical retention standards or had medically unfitting conditions by Department of Defense (DoD) standards.

3.  The Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 25 May 2005, was performed by a competent and licensed provider.  The psychiatrist clearly identifies that the applicant did not warrant a disposition through medical channels.  Upon review of the available service medical documents the applicant's initial presentation was due to an injury sustained to her boyfriend.  There is insufficient evidence to show the diagnosis that was the basis for her administrative discharge was incorrect. 

4.  It is important to note that the DoD does not compensate service members for anticipated future severity or potential complications of conditions that were incurred during service.  That is a role reserved for the VA.

5.  An award of a VA rating does not establish entitlement to medical retirement or separation from the Army.  Operating under its own policies and regulations, the VA which has neither the authority nor the responsibility for determining medical unfitness for military duty, awards ratings because a medical condition is related to service and affects the individual's civilian employability. 

4.  Furthermore, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings.  The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably perform his or her duties and assign an appropriate disability rating before he or she can be medically retired or separated.

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)                                         AR20120017854



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140018068



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1