IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  24 September 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140019825 


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 correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) as follows:

* items 4a (Grade, Rate Rank) and 4b (Pay Grade), to show her rank/grade as private first class (PFC)/E-3, instead of private (PV2)/E-2
* item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation), to show she was separated by reason of an anxiety disorder, instead of a personality disorder 

2.  The applicant states:

   a.  The entry in item 28 of her DD Form 214 should be removed because it is affecting her entitlement to Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) benefits.  Furthermore, the current narrative reason does not accurately reflect the nature of her discharge.  
   
   b.  She was promoted to PFC during basic training for her exemplary work and assisting her recruiter.  After training, she went to her first duty station in Germany.  One day she did not show up to formation, because she was too scared and distraught to return to base.  She became paralyzed with fear at home, due to the constant verbal abuse and harassment she was subjected to.  Her commander and the German police came to her door to retrieve her.  She was demoted in rank/grade from PFC to PV2, just because she did not show up to formation due to her distraught state of mind.  Her commander threatened that if she fought the demotion, the Judge Advocate General (JAG) would possibly sentence her to jail time.  He also stated that fighting the demotion was futile and would keep her in Germany longer while she was waiting to leave the military.  She decided not to fight the demotion at the time because she was afraid of jail time or worse.  She feels her narrative reason for separation should be corrected to show she was discharged due to an anxiety disorder, and her rank should be restored to PFC.  

	c.  She is challenging the narrative reason for her separation because a personality disorder is a preexisting condition, she has never been diagnosed as having a personality disorder, and her military record does not contain any evidence of her having been diagnosed with a personality disorder.

	d.  Many legal and VA websites acknowledge the military tends to list "personality disorder" as the narrative reason for discharge for the sole purpose of denying Soldiers their rightful benefits.  There are several valid points supporting her claim.  

      (1)  First, a personality disorder is a preexisting condition and one she was not diagnosed with prior to or at the time of her enlistment physical.

      (2)  Second, there is documented proof of harsh conditions/treatment, verbal abuse, harassment, and initial denial of treatment or medical attention to help her cope with what she was experiencing.  The harsh conditions/treatment, verbal abuse, and harassment she was experiencing actually created "anxiety disorder." An investigation and the documented proof of these conditions/treatment led her to receiving disability compensation.  
      
      (3)  Third, the decision of the Department of Defense (DoD) to award her disability compensation due to "anxiety disorder" directly contradicts the narrative reason for separation listed on her DD Form 214.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement and her DD Form 214.

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 entrance physical, which was conducted as part of her enlistment, does not indicate she had a personality disorder prior to or at the time the physical was conducted.  

3.  She enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 January 2002 and held military occupational specialty 92Y (Unit Supply Specialist).  The highest rank/grade she attained was PFC/E-3.  

4.  She arrived at her first duty station in Germany on or around 24 June 2002.  Her records show her date of return from overseas (DEROS) as 25 June 2005, which indicates the Army assigned her to Germany on a 3-year overseas tour.  

5.  Her record contains a memorandum for record, entitled "Recommendation for Intent to Initiate Chapter Proceedings," dated 5 September 2002.  The purpose of this memorandum was to notify her of her commander's intent to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-17 (Other designated, physical or mental conditions).  Her commander cited her inability to adapt to life in the U.S. Army as the reason for his proposed action, and it was his determination that she was unable to be rehabilitated in any way to cope with the demands of the duties required of her.  After addressing the situation with her immediate supervisor, as well as various health care and social agencies, it was his intent to initiate separation proceedings to separate her from active service in the military.  

6.  She was demoted from the rank/grade of PFC/E-3 to PV2/E-2 on 16 October 2002.

7.  Her record contains a mental status evaluation, dated 17 October 2002, which was issued by the Chief, Psychiatry Department, U.S. Army Medical and Dental Activity (MEDDAC), Wurzburg, Germany.  The examining doctor noted the applicant's behavior was dejected and tearful throughout the interviews; her mood or effect was depressed and anxious; her thinking process was overwhelmed by anxiety; her thought content contained multiple fears; her memory was poor; her concentration was decreased.  

	a.  She was diagnosed with anxiety disorder NOS (not otherwise specified) and personality disorder NOS.  The suitability for service findings stated the applicant met the retention standards prescribed in Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3, and her psychiatric problems did not warrant disposition through medical channels, i.e., the applicant's conditions were not appropriate for a medical board.

		(1)  The first diagnosis, anxiety disorder NOS, represents a medical condition not amounting to disability in accordance with Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) and this condition is not appropriate for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, paragraph 5-11 (Separation of personnel who did not meet procurement medical-fitness standards).   However, this condition manifests disturbances of emotional control sufficiently severe that the applicant's ability to effectively perform military duties is significantly impaired.  This fact was noted on the Mental Status Evaluation performed on 4-5 September 2002.  The interview conducted 17 October 2002 strongly supports the examining doctor's conclusions and recommendations.  [The mental health evaluation was not available for review in this case.]

		(2)  The second diagnosis, personality disorder NOS, represents a chronic, deeply ingrained, maladaptive pattern of behavior, within the meaning of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13 (Separation because of personality disorder) and Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3.  It causes the Soldier to be administratively unfit for duty.  This condition is not amenable to hospitalization, treatment, transfer, disciplinary action, retraining or reclassification within the military system.  It is unlikely that any effort to rehabilitate this individual into a satisfactory member of the military would be successful.

	b.  The diagnoses of anxiety disorder NOS and personality disorder NOS were of such severity as to significantly impair the ability of the applicant to function effectively in a military environment.  It was recommended that the applicant be separated administratively from military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13 or paragraph 5-17.  The evaluator stated the applicant was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right, and she had the mental capacity to understand and to participate in the separation proceedings.  

	c.  The recommendation stated she was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by her command and recommended she be administratively separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13 or paragraph 5-17, as expeditiously as possible. 

8.  Her record contains a memorandum for record, dated 24 October 2002, which shows Second Lieutenant (2LT) DK assumed command of the applicant's unit during the period 25 October 2002 through 29 October 2002.

9.  Her record contains two DA Forms 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form), dated 27 October 2002, which show she was counseled for failing to complete her assigned duties.  The counseling statement shows she refused to continue her appointed duties and called a representative at the Red Cross.  During this conversation, she became so upset that she began crying and was then unable to perform her duties.  The Noncommissioned Officer in Charge (NCOIC) contacted her supervisor, the acting commander, and a physician's assistant (PA) from the aid station.  When her supervisor arrived, the acting commander was speaking with the Red Cross representative and the applicant was then sent to the aid station, where she laid down in an attempt to calm herself.  Another Soldier had to be pulled from their important duties to complete the applicant’s assigned duties.  She stated she had an anxiety attack and that is why she could not continue with her assigned duties.  Her supervisor indicated she would be permitted to see any medical personnel necessary.  She was also counseled because she was not able to carry or qualify with her assigned weapon.  

10.  She was formally counseled on 28 October 2002 as to her [acting] commander's intent to initiate separation actions against her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13.  The counseling stated she was unable to adapt to life in the U.S. Army.  After discussing her situation with her immediate supervisor, as well as the Chief of Psychiatry at Landstuhl Medical Center, it was her commander's determination that she was unable and unwilling to be rehabilitated in any way to cope with the demands of the duties required of her.  It was his intent to initiate separation proceedings to separate her from active service.  This would benefit the needs of the Army and the applicant.  

11.  The acting commander sent a memorandum on 28 October 2002 to the NCOIC of the Military Justice/Legal Office requesting legal action be taken against the applicant in the form of an administrative discharge under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13.

12.  The applicant indicated she had been advised by consulting counsel on 18 November 2002 of the basis for the contemplated separation action against her for personality disorder and its effects; of the rights available to her; and of the effects of any actions she took in waiving her rights.  She acknowledged she understood that is she had less than 6 months of total active and reserve service at the time of separation, she was not entitled to have her case heard by an administrative separation board.  She indicated she had not submitted any statements in her own behalf and that she had been afforded the opportunity but decided to waive her right to consulting counsel and representation by military or civilian counsel.  She also acknowledged she understood she could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions was issued to her.  
13.  Her commander officially initiated separation actions against her on            25 November 2002, in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph     5-13.  He cited her diagnoses of personality disorder and anxiety disorder as the basis for his recommendation.  He stated it was unlikely that any effort to rehabilitate her into a satisfactory member of the military would be successful and her discharge would be in the best interest of the Army.  He recommended she receive an honorable discharge certificate.

14.  The separation authority approved her discharge on 7 December 2002, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, and directed she receive an honorable discharge certificate.  

15.  She was honorably discharged on 23 December 2002 in the rank/grade of PV2/E-2.  Her DD Form 214 shows she was discharged in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, with the narrative reason for separation shown as "Personality Disorder."

16.  There is no indication she applied to the Army Discharge Review Board to request an upgrade of her discharge within that Board's 15-year statute of limitations.  

17.  She did not provide any evidence from the VA or DoD that shows she was awarded a disability rating for an anxiety disorder because she was subjected to harsh conditions/treatment, verbal abuse, or harassment during her period of military service.  Additionally, she did not provide any evidence to show either of these agencies or the Army conducted an investigation which determined she was subjected to harsh conditions/ treatment, verbal abuse, or harassment.

18.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.
 
   a.  Paragraph 5-13 (Separation because of personality disorder) provides that a Soldier may be separated for a personality disorder (not amounting to disability) that interferes with assignment, or with duty performance, when so disposed as indicated in paragraph 5-13a.  
   
   b.  This condition is a deeply ingrained mal-adaptive pattern of behavior of long duration that interferes with the Soldier's ability to perform his/her duties.  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 DoD.  
   
   c.  Commanders will not take action prescribed in this chapter in lieu of disciplinary action solely to spare a Soldier who may have committed serious acts of misconduct for which harsher penalties may be imposed under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).  
   
   d.  Separation because of personality disorder is authorized only if the diagnosis concludes that the disorder is so severe that the Soldier's ability to function effectively in the military environment is significantly impaired.  Separation processing may not be initiated under this paragraph until the Soldier has been formally counseled concerning deficiencies and has been afforded ample opportunity, to overcome those deficiencies as reflected in appropriate counseling or personnel records.  
   
   e.  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.  Characterization of service under honorable conditions may be awarded to a Soldier who has been convicted of an offense by general court-martial or who has been convicted by more than one special court-martial during the current enlistment period of obligated service.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for correction of her DD Form 214 to show she was separated in the rank/grade of PFC/E-3, by reason of anxiety disorder versus personality disorder, was carefully considered.

2.  Her statement includes numerous contentions vis-à-vis the conditions that led to her discharge.  Notwithstanding her contentions, her record is void of any documentation that addresses her receipt of NJP or her reduction to the rank/grade of PV2/E-2.  Barring evidence to the contrary, there is no reason that administrative regularity cannot be presumed in these two matters.

3.  The applicant contends she was subjected to harsh conditions, verbal abuse and harassment, and she was denied medical treatment.  She further contends she was awarded disability benefits by DoD and the VA for her anxiety disorder because her records and an investigation shows she was, in fact, subjected to harsh conditions, verbal abuse and harassment, which was the root cause of her anxiety disorder.  She also asserts that she has never had or been diagnosed with a personality disorder.  However:
	
   a.  The evidence of record indicates she was seen by mental health professionals on more than one occasion. 

	b.  Her record does not contain any evidence to show she was subjected to an overly harsh environment, or that she was verbally abused and harassed.  

	c.  Her mental health evaluation shows she was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder, which met medical retention standards, and a personality disorder, which did not meet retention standards.  As such, the mental health professionals recommended she be separated from military service for personality disorder.  

	d.  She did not provide
 any documents from the VA or DoD that show her current diagnoses or that show her diagnoses resulted from mistreatment by the Army and this mistreatment caused her to develop an anxiety disorder.  

4.  She asserts that her narrative reason for separation should be changed from "personality disorder" to "anxiety disorder" because she was never diagnosed with a personality disorder and her current narrative reason for separation is affecting her VA benefits.  

5.  The evidence of record clearly shows she was diagnosed with a personality disorder and that mental health professionals recommended she be separated for a personality disorder.  As such, her chain of command initiated separation actions against her by reason of her diagnosed personality disorder, all the regulatory requirements with respect to her discharge were met, and her rights were protected through the separation process.  

6.  Based on the foregoing, there is insufficient evidence 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 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)                                         AR20140019825





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140019825



9


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1