IN THE CASE OF:	   

		BOARD DATE:	  11 August 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20150008811 


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) to show "1" or "2" vice "3" in item 27 (Reentry Code).

2.  The applicant states, in effect:

	a.  Her discharge was improper because her diagnosis of an adjustment disorder was not confirmed, upon further evaluation no evidence for this diagnosis was found.  She was evaluated by Captain (CPT) MJ and he did not leave a record of the evaluation.  It is presumed that he left on permanent change of station (PCS) orders before conclusive results could be confirmed.  

	b.  Prior to Master Sergeant (MSG) GC’s command she had served 2 years and had no negative evaluations.  She sought two additional medical opinions on her own while serving on active duty and neither clinician agreed with CPT MJ's diagnosis.  Additionally, neither clinician was able to obtain CPT MJ's raw data from the testing.  Hence, the results of the evaluation were not confirmed.  

	c.  She maintains the routine she had while in the military.  She continues to attend college, work full time, exercise, volunteer, and currently maintain a healthy interpersonal relationship.  Relieving her of the responsibilities and duties she had while in the Army did not change at all.  Thus, no diagnosis of adjustment disorder is warranted. 

	d.  She is seeking this change in order to enlist again and serve her country as an Army physician and/or psychiatrist.  She hopes to have a long career in the Army and believes she has a unique perspective of how critical a psychiatric diagnosis is to a Soldier's career.  She also hopes to serve overseas and help Soldiers who have been wounded mentally and physically while serving our great nation.

3.  The applicant provides her resume, 10 pages of unofficial transcripts from four different universities, and two psychological reports. 

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 6 March 2003 and she held military occupational specialty 68K (Medical Laboratory Specialist).  On 21 July 2004, she was assigned to the Medical Laboratory, U.S. Army Medical Department Activity (MEDDAC), Fort Campbell, KY.  On 1 October 2004, she was promoted to the rank/grade of specialist (SPC)/E-4.  

3.  Between August 2005 and April 2006, she was counseled on several occasions by her noncommissioned officers (NCOs) for sending email to her senior leaders without going through the chain of command and for not getting along with other Soldiers.  She was also counseled concerning her personal issues with another Soldier several times and she was given guidance, resources, and tools to address her personal issues.  She was further advised that her unprofessional conduct within the medical laboratory would not be tolerated.  

4.  Her record contains several emails from her, to include the following:

	a.  On 30 August 2005, she sent an eight-page email to her senior NCO in charge, MSG GC, and CPT AS, subject:  One-on-One, wherein, she stated she evaluated the laboratory, the Soldiers in the section, and what she thought the problems were with the laboratory and personnel.  She discussed each specific section and detailed her thoughts, the problems in each section, and her solutions to the problems.  She concluded the email by stating she hoped she had helped them understand the laboratory better. 

	b.  On 22 January 2006, she sent an email to MSG GC and Sergeant (SGT) JM, subject:  Field and Shift Changes, wherein, in part, she stated she heard that each Soldier was going to do a training rotation in the field, she felt the laboratory was overstaffed at the time, and she wanted them to know she really didn't want to go to the field but would go if it was her duty.  However, she would rather study for the board, keep taking college courses, and work on her professionalism and work-place relations.  She went on to detail her grievances with two other Soldiers in the laboratory.

	c.  On 19 April 2006, she sent an email to her immediate supervisor, SGT JM, subject:  Conference for Thursday, 20 April 2006, wherein she stated, in part, she believed a meeting between herself, SGT JM, and Staff Sergeant (SSG) D could be beneficial and "bring into the light" some things that could be different.  She discussed her grievances with several other Soldiers in the laboratory, how she thought things should work, her intent in sending numerous emails to several other Soldiers, and explained why she had previously sent a heated email to SSG D.

5.  On 20 April 2006, MSG GC sent an email to the commander recommending the applicant be command-referred for a mental health evaluation.  She stated, in part:

	a.  She had the applicant's mental health referral from February 2005 and it still summed up the issues they had been trying to address.  The applicant's “inability to focus on duties, failure to comprehend feedback, evaluation of own performance does not agree with that of the supervisors, and indications of extreme stress from marital issues.”  

	b.  The applicant had sent her (MSG GC) and her first line NCO extremely long, unsolicited, explanations of her "issues" with duty and other Soldiers in the laboratory.  Her issues had been continuously addressed by her (MSG GC), SSG D, and SGT JM for several months.  There had been no change in her performance, behavior, and interpersonal actions with other technicians in the laboratory.  What caused some concern was the written ramblings from one issue to another without really making a point about anything.


	c.  In her opinion, the applicant seemed very depressed, paranoid, and did not seem to have consistency in thought or action.  She had a very distant look about her and her body language.  When discussing her marital issues, she stated she did not want a divorce because she had good Internet connections where she lived and didn't want to give that up, as well as her pets, to live in the barracks.  She was given contact numbers for Army One Source to seek counseling but had not made any attempt to resolve her own issues.  

6.  On 15 May 2006, her immediate commander notified her he was referring her for a mental health evaluation.  This was based on her paranoia, depression, inability to focus on her duties, and her failure to comprehend feedback.  He stated before making the referral, he consulted with CPT MJ about her recent actions and CPT MJ concurred the evaluation was warranted and appropriate.  

7.  On 17 May 2006, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation.  The examining psychologist, CPT MJ, noted the applicant was fully alert and oriented, her mood was anxious, her thinking process was clear, her thought content was clear, and she was mentally responsible.  CPT MJ diagnosed her with an adjustment disorder, unspecified, occupational problem, and narcissistic traits personality disorder, not otherwise specified (provisional).  She met the retention requirements of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness). 

8.  The DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation), dated 2 June 2006, shows the examining psychologist stated, in part:

	a.  Results of the current evaluation (to include psychological testing and a review of collateral information) indicates significant occupational difficulties, most notably evidenced by instances in which the applicant had failed to follow her chain of command.  She appeared to possess a strong sense of entitlement and self-importance, oppositional tendencies, and defensiveness, which cumulatively suggested characterological influences.  In this context, it should be noted that she previously expressed significant concerns about her suitability for field training and deployments which raised concerns about her ability to adapt to military requirements as they arise.  

	b.  In January 2005, she was also referred for command evaluation for occupational and marital concerns.  She was subsequently inconsistent with treatment efforts at Adult Behavioral Health.  Her condition and the problems presented were not, in his opinion, amenable to hospitalization, short-term treatment, or rehabilitative transfer.  


	c.  Based upon the evaluation, the diagnosis was adjustment disorder, unspecified occupational problem, and represented a psychiatric condition which interfered with her ability to perform duty.  This condition was a situational maladjustment to stressors inherent in military duty and was of sufficient severity that her ability to function effectively in the military environment was significantly impaired.  It was his opinion that she had no potential to meet mobilization requirements or for useful service.  A Discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 15-17, for other designated physical or mental condition was recommended.

	d.  She was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command.  She declined treatment services at Adult Behavioral Health.  The command was encouraged to continue to monitor her during separation proceedings and immediately contact Adult Behavioral Health if any significant concerns arose.

9.  In a letter to the Commander, MEDDAC, Fort Campbell, dated 28 June 2006, the applicant stated:

	a.  She wanted to apologize for her inappropriate emails sent from August 2005 until March 2006.  She never received responses from any of her emails and she now understood they were improper and not respectful.  She also understood that her behavior which prompted SGT JM, SSG D, and MSG GC to seek CPT R's permission for a commander's referral for a mental health evaluation were the emails.  She never intended to convey that she was emotionally conflicted or disagreed with any military obligations, nor was she informed the emails seemed like they threatened the hospital mission.

	b.  She did not want to be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17, because she was able to prove she would continue to live the Army values.  She had truly learned that her behavior was inappropriate and she could continue to fulfill her duties with increased knowledge from this hard-earned lesson.

10.  On 10 July 2006, the applicant was notified by her immediate commander that discharge action was being initiated against her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17, for other designated physical or mental conditions.  The commander stated, in part, the reason for the action was the applicant was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder, unspecified occupational problem, narcissistic traits, and the conditions and problems presented were not amenable to short-term treatment.  It was unlikely that efforts to rehabilitate her into a satisfactory member of the military would be successful.  
11.  On 10 July 2006, she acknowledged notification of the proposed discharge action and that she was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and of the procedures and rights that were available to her.  

12.  On 17 August 2006, she sought legal counsel.  In a memorandum to the Commander, MEDDAC, dated 17 August 2006, her legal counsel stated the applicant sought her services pertaining to her proposed discharge and was now requesting an indefinite extension.  The applicant had submitted a request to have psychiatric raw data submitted to a civilian physician to provide data to establish a professional opinion for rebuttal purposes.  She (legal counsel) spoke with the Chief, Adult Behavior Health and was advised the documentation would be provided to the Evelyn Frye Center, Nashville, TN, as early as the next day.  She would counsel the applicant once she had the opportunity to provide her supporting matters, the civilian psychiatrist’s opinion. 

13.  The applicant provides and her separation packet contains a letter, dated 30 August 2006, from the Evelyn Frye Center, titled:  Fitness for Duty Psychological Evaluation, wherein a licensed psychologist, stated, in part:

	a.  The applicant was evaluated on 14 and 24 July 2006.  She reported she received a commander's referral for a psychological evaluation as a result of numerous suggestions or requests she had emailed to her supervisor, as well as vague reports, presumably made by a coworker, that she had been "crowding" her husband at work and behaving jealously toward other females interacting with him.  She denied the characterizations.  The evaluation reportedly concluded she had an adjustment disorder, unspecified occupational problems, and narcissistic traits that were not amenable to treatment and recommended she be discharged.  She was seeking a second opinion.

	b.  The applicant provided copies of emails to various military personnel, dated 30 August 2005, 22 January 2006, and 12 and 13 April 2006.  The content and composition of the emails were somewhat disorganized, difficult to follow at times, and appeared to be written at a level below her tested intellectual functioning.  While her communication style and chain of command protocol may be questioned, and subject to further guidance and counseling, there were no grossly inappropriate matter that would suggest a chronic, intractable mental condition.  

	c.  The results of the evaluation revealed no indications of significant clinical pathology.  Her mental status was found to be within normal limits and her intelligence level was in the high average range.  She denied any past criminal record/behavior, history or pattern of antisocial behaviors, sexual misconduct, or significant transgressions with the military.  She does not appear to have difficulty asserting herself or getting along with others and should be amenable to correction and guidance.  The analysis was based upon the subjective report and history given by the applicant, the information provided, and the results of the psychological testing.  It was assumed the material provided was correct.

14.  The applicant provides and her separation packet contains a letter, dated 6 September 2006, titled:  Psychological Report, wherein a clinical psychologist, Clarksville, TN, stated, in part:

	a.  The applicant came in for a psychological assessment to present rebuttal evidence to an evaluation performed by a CPT MJ whose raw data could not be obtained due to his PCS.  This left his conclusion unsupported scientifically and appeared to run contrary to his own assessment and that of a Nashville psychologist.  The tests given included the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), 3 hours of interview, and a version of the Jung Typology Test.

	b.  The results of the PAI indicated no clinical pathology.  Her self-report suggested no significant long-term problems.  Self concept was described as involving a stable personality style as well as a clear sense of purpose.  The Jungian assessment suggested a neat, orderly, traditional type person; highly dependable and responsible.  Interpersonal style was described as modest, unpretentious, and unassuming.  Capacity for being a team player was high.  In light of the comments with respect to improper behavior, the capacity to stir a hornets nest such as suggested would have needed help from more astute masters in chaos or a few of simple ill will.

15.  In a memorandum to the Commander, MEDDAC, dated 10 September 2006, the applicant stated, in part, she requested to be retained in the Army.  This had been a difficult time for her but it had taught her much about herself and what she needed to do to be a successful Soldier.  She learned not to send email written unprofessionally and not to skip leaders in her chain of command.  She learned to use discretion and to implement the Army Values when corresponding with her chain of command.  Two certified mental health providers had stated she did have the capacity to be a Soldier.  With this memorandum, she provided the two letters detailed in paragraphs 13 and 14 above.

16.  On 11 September 2006, she consulted with legal counsel.  She was advised of the basis for the separation action being initiated against her and the procedures and rights available to her.  She acknowledged that she understood if she were discharged she would be ineligible to apply for enlistment in the Army for a period of 2 years after her discharge.  

17.  On 20 September 2006, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17, and directed the issuance of an Honorable Discharge Certificate.  On 16 October 2006, she was discharged accordingly in the rank of SPC.

18.  The DD Form 214 she was issued shows the following entries in:

* item 25 (Separation Authority) – Army Regulation 635-200, 
paragraph 5-17
* item 26 (Separation Code) – JFV
* item 27 – 3
* item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – condition, not a disability

19.  Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-17 provides that a Soldier may be separated on the basis of other physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability that interferes with assignment to or performance of duty.  A recommendation for separation must be supported by documentation confirming the existence of the physical or mental condition.  Members may be separated for physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability sufficiently severe that the Soldier's ability to effectively perform military duties is significantly impaired.

20.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD)) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It states that the SPD code of JFV is the appropriate code to assign Soldiers separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table stipulates that a reentry eligibility (RE) code of 3 will be assigned to members separated under these provisions with an SPD code of JFV.

21.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program) covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army, U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard.  Table 3-1 shows the RE codes and states, in part:

	a.  RE-1 applies to Soldiers completing their terms of active service who are considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army.  They are qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met.

	b.  RE-3 applies to Soldiers who are not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waivable.  They are ineligible for enlistment unless a waiver is granted. 
	c.  RE-4 applies to Soldiers who are separated from their last period of service with a nonwaivable disqualification.  They are ineligible for enlistment.

22.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) in effect at the time established the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  The DD Form 214 is prepared for all personnel at the time of their retirement, discharge, or release from active duty.  The DD Form 214 is a synopsis of the Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty.  It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Notwithstanding the applicant's contention that her diagnosis of adjustment disorder was not confirmed upon further evaluation, the evidence of record confirms the applicant was properly diagnosed with an adjustment disorder, a condition that interfered with her ability to perform her military duties.  Accordingly, her commander initiated separation action against her.  

2.  It appears her additional evaluations were taken into consideration by the separation authority and were found not to negate her diagnosis of adjustment disorder.  Her separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized her rights.  

3.  The evidence of record shows her diagnosis of an adjustment disorder by CPT MJ was based on discussions with her immediate commander and evidence provided by the command that detailed her past behavior and interactions with others for almost 2 years, not just her personal statements.  The two additional evaluations found there was no indication of significant clinical pathology that would suggest a chronic, intractable mental condition, no clinical pathology, and no significant long-term problems.  This does not contradict CPT MJ's diagnosis of an adjustment disorder as he stated her condition was a situational maladjustment to stressors inherent in military duty that significantly impaired her ability to function in the military environment.  

4.  The applicant's RE code was assigned based on her separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17, by reason of a condition, not a disability, with an SPD of JFV.  An RE code of 3 is the correct code for Soldiers separated by reason of a condition, not a disability, and is properly recorded on her DD Form 214.

5.  While her post-service conduct may be commendable and her adjustment disorder may have manifested itself due to circumstances at the time of her service, the DD Form 214 provides a brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge.  There are no provisions to change entries on the DD Form 214 when conditions may have changed after a Soldier's discharge.

6.  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 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)                                         AR20150008811





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20150008811



10


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1