MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:           5 April 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999027644

	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.

	Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock 		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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:  In effect, that his DD Form 214 reflect that his discharge was for a seizure disorder, not a personality disorder as shown on the DD Form 214, and that his DD Form 214 reflect his grade at the time of his discharge as PFC E-3 in lieu of PV2 E-2.  He also states that he not be required to reimburse the Army $7403.84, a portion of the enlistment bonus that he received.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was being treated for a seizure disorder, thus his discharge from the Army.  He had no medical problems until his wisdom teeth were removed.  He was not given any antibiotics, leading to severe infection, after which he lost 30 pounds and started having medical problems.  His condition was initially diagnosed as seizure disorder, then changed to personality disorder.  He requested reclassification, but was denied.  He was involuntarily discharged and required to pay back $7403.84 of his enlistment bonus.  He should not have to pay this back because of his honorable discharge.  He was never in any trouble while in the Army.  He planned on serving all of his four year enlistment; however, he was not allowed to do so.  He was treated for seizures, not personality disorder and at no time did he take medication for a personality disorder.  He was healthy when he entered the Army, and all his problems started after his wisdom teeth were removed.  Prior to that he scored almost   100 percent on the Army physical training test.  He wanted to get a small business loan, but could not, because [his indebtedness to the Army] is reflected on his credit record.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Army in pay grade E-2 for four years on                  14 August 1997.  He enlisted for an Army cash bonus enlistment option of $12,000.00.  He completed training as an infantryman at Fort Benning, Georgia, and remained assigned to that post after completion of his training.   

A 5 August 1998 counseling form indicates that the applicant was being referred for a mental evaluation because of his inability to perform his duties.

In a 6 August 1998 report of mental status evaluation, the examining psychiatrist stated that the applicant had been evaluated at the community mental health services on repeated occasions, and those evaluations revealed that he had a previously undisclosed psychiatric history.  His condition was diagnosed as attention deficit disorder, by history, depressive disorder, and borderline personality disorder.  The psychiatrist stated that the applicant’s maladjustment to military service reflected a lifelong pattern of recurrent and immature behavior, as well as an inability to relate effectively to others.  He went on to say that the applicant was extremely unsuitable for military service due to a severe personality disorder, low motivation, and a high potential for harm to himself and others.  His condition was a long term, impulsive condition, unlikely to change quickly, despite treatment; and was a deeply ingrained maladaptive pattern of behavior of long duration.  His disorder was so severe that his ability to function effectively in the military environment was significant impaired.  His condition was not amenable to hospitalization, brief treatment, a rehabilitative transfer, disciplinary action, retraining or MOS reclassification.  The psychiatrist recommended that the applicant be expeditiously administratively separated.  The applicant suffered from psychiatric difficulties which, if known, would have prevented his enlistment.  The most appropriate discharge was under          paragraph 5-13.  Failure to discharge him could result in a further escalation of his symptoms, to include the possibility of risk of harm to himself or others.  Appropriate medications had been initiated and they would continue to work with him.

An 11 August 1998 report of medical examination shows that the applicant was medically qualified for discharge with a physical profile serial of 1 1 1 1 1 1.  The report of medical history that he furnished for the examination shows that he had a wisdom tooth removal through oral surgery, that he was being treated at the mental health clinic for a personality disorder, that his condition was diagnosed as major depression, that he blacked out two times in July 1998, that he had trouble remembering things, and that he had frequent headaches.  The applicant stated that he was in good health. 

A 31 August 1998 counseling form indicates that the applicant was being reassigned as he had requested so he could receive another chance to be evaluated on his retention in the Army.

A 1 September 1998 counseling form indicates that the applicant was again being referred for an evaluation because he could not perform his duties. 

In a 9 September report of mental status evaluation, the chief of inpatient psychiatric diagnosed the applicant’s condition as adjustment disorder with depressed mood, occupational problem, personality disorder not otherwise specified with borderline schizotypal features.  She stated that the applicant had expressed suicidal feelings secondary to his dissatisfaction with the Army, particularly how long his administrative separation was taking.  He was admitted to a psychiatric ward for further evaluation and stabilization and adjusted well, and he stated that he wanted to return to his unit.  She stated that the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings and met the medical requirements for retention.  She recommended strongly that the applicant be administratively separated as soon as possible.

An 11 September 1998 counseling form shows that the applicant was counseled about his inadequate performance as a truck driver and assistant supply clerk.
Another 11 September 1998 counseling form shows that the applicant was being reassigned, because the applicant felt that his job as a supply clerk was too stressful.

On 7 October 1998 the applicant’s commanding officer notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 5-13, for a personality disorder.  The applicant consulted with counsel, and stated that he had been advised of the basis for the contemplated action, its effects, and the rights available to him.  He declined to submit statements in his own behalf. 

The applicant’s commanding officer then recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be discharged from the Army and that he be issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate.  The separation action was reviewed by the command Staff Judge Advocate and found to be legally sufficient.  On                  5 November 1998 the separation authority approved the recommendation. 

The applicant was discharged on 11 December 1998.  His DD Form 214 shows his grade as PV2 E-2.  He had 1 year, 3 months, and 28 days of service.

The aforementioned counseling forms all show the applicant’s rank as PFC.  Correspondence in the separation proceedings address or refer to his rank as PFC.  However, in recommending the applicant for separation, his commanding officer indicated that he had not been advanced to PFC, that his rank was PV2, with a date of rank of 14 August 1997, the date of his enlistment in the Army.  Furthermore, a 23 September 1998 form showing that the applicant was counseled on VA educational benefits shows his grade as PV2, as does a          19 November 1998 counseling form from the Army Education Center.  The applicant’s personnel qualification record does not show that he was advanced to pay grade E-3.  The applicant’s computerized enlisted record brief dated           23 September 1998 shows his pay grade as E-2.   

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5 concerns separation for the convenience of the government and paragraph 5-13 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for  separating members for personality disorder (not amounting to a disability under Army Regulation 635-40), a deeply-ingrained maladaptive pattern of behavior which interferes with the individual's ability to perform.  Prior counseling with a view to correcting deficiencies is mandatory.  The service of a soldier separated for a personality disorder will be characterized as honorable unless an entry level separation is required.

Army Regulation 600-8-19 prescribes the enlisted promotion and reduction functions of the military personnel system.  Paragraph 1-10 states in pertinent part that a soldier is in a non promotable status if he is involved in proceedings that may result in an administrative elimination.  Paragraph 2-5 states that for advancement to PFC, there is a 12 month time in service (6 months time in service may be waived) and a 4 month time in grade (2 months may be waived) requirement.  It goes on to say, in effect, that the unit commander will sign a DA Form 4187 executing advancement to PFC.

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.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  Two reports of mental status evaluation clearly show that the applicant had a personality disorder, that he had been treated for that condition and medications had been prescribed for his personality disorder, and contrary to his contention, the applicant was not healthy when he entered the Army as evidenced by the August 1998 report of mental status evaluation.  The separation authority appropriately approved his discharge.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

2.  There are documents that show that the applicant’s rank and pay grade were PFC E-3.  However, there is no DA Form 4187 showing that the applicant’s commanding officer approved his advancement to that pay grade, his personnel qualification record does not show he was advanced to pay grade E-3, nor does his enlisted record brief.  The applicant’s commanding officer, in recommending to the separation authority that the applicant be discharged, indicated that his rank was PV2 with a date of rank as the date of his enlistment in the Army.  Furthermore, the applicant had been evaluated numerous times at the community mental clinic prior to August 1998 (therefore, prior to the applicant meeting the 12 month time in service requirement for advancement to PFC), and it is unlikely that the applicant would have been promoted by his commanding officer.  The applicant’s rank and pay grade on his DD Form 214 is considered correct.

3.  Although the applicant has indicated that he is indebted to the government and is being required to reimburse the government over $7,000.00, he has not provided any other information or any documentation, or provided any evidence  in order for the Board to make a determination.  Consequently, the Board cannot act upon this matter. 

4.  The applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.   

5.  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.

6.  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

___sk___  ___rvo___  ___le___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999027644	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000405	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  322	110.02	
2.	129.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.