MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           27 January 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999024455

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge for medical reasons.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was discharged due to unsatisfactory performance due to anti-social behavioral disorder.  The VA is currently rating his disability at 70 percent.  He is awaiting an upgrade to 100 percent.  He provides no supporting evidence.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

After having had prior service, he re-enlisted in the Regular Army on                  11 September 1987.

Between December 1987 and December 1988, the applicant received about ten counseling statements for infractions such as failing to be at his appointed place of duty, carrying an unauthorized weapon (for which he also received a letter of reprimand), failing to utilize his chain of command, failing his physical fitness test, dereliction of duty, failing to prepare for an alert, and failing to obey regulations.

On 1 February 1989, the applicant’s commander referred him for a psychiatric examination.  The examination results are not available.

On 15 February 1989, the applicant completed a separation physical examination and was found qualified for an administrative separation.

The applicant’s commander apparently initially recommended him for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, personality disorder.  On 6 March 1989, the battalion adjutant returned the recommendation for re-evaluation, stating that while the applicant’s report of mental status evaluation reflected a personality disorder, his established pattern of unsatisfactory performance more accurately supported a separation under the provisions of chapter 13.

The applicant’s commander recommended he be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance and recommended he be given a general discharge under honorable conditions. 

On 7 March 1989, the applicant was advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him for unsatisfactory performance.  He waived consideration of his case by an administrative board and personal appearance before such a board (although, as he had less than 6 years for pay, he was not entitled to board consideration), and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

On 14 March 1989, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the soldier be issued a general discharge under honorable conditions.

On 3 April 1989, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-4, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance, with a general discharge under honorable conditions .  He had completed           3 years, 6 months and 23 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.  

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member may be separated when it is determined that he or she is unqualified for further military service because of unsatisfactory performance.  Commanders will separate a soldier for unsatisfactory performance when it is clearly established that, in the commander’s judgment, the soldier will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13 sets the policy and prescribes procedures for separating members with a personality disorder (not amounting to a disability) that interferes with assignment to or performance of duty when so diagnosed by a physician trained in psychiatry and psychiatric diagnosis.  Separation for personality disorder is not appropriate when separation is warranted under chapters 4, 5, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 or 15.

Army Regulation 635-200 states that the honorable characterization of service is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  It is the pattern of behavior and not the isolated instance which should be considered the governing factor in determination of character of service to be awarded.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  It is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

Army Regulation 40-501 governs medical fitness standards for enlistment, retention and separation.  Paragraph 3-35 states that a personality disorder may render an individual administratively unfit rather than unfit because of physical disability.  Interference with performance of effective duty in association with this condition will be dealt with through appropriate administrative channels.

On 16 August 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder.  By regulation, interference with performance of effective duty in association with these conditions will be dealt with through appropriate administrative, not medical, channels.  However, Army Regulation 635-200 provides that separation for personality disorder is not appropriate when separation is warranted under certain other chapters, including chapter 13.

3.  The Board concludes that the applicant’s record of disciplinary infractions, although relatively minor, were frequent enough to justify processing him for separation for unsatisfactory performance rather than for personality disorder.  His pattern of behavior also justified the general discharge under honorable conditions given to him.  His military record was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__inw___  __sk____  __eja___  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024455	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000127	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19890403	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Ch 13	
DISCHARGE REASON	A40.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.