PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:           19 October 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000037212

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

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Gerald E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		Member	
	Ms. Tracey L. Pinson		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, a reconsideration of his appeal to correct his records by changing the narrative reason for separation to expeditious discharge program or expiration of his term of service (ETS) with a change of reenlistment eligibility (RE) code.  He requests that he be reinstated to active duty in his former rank with back pay and service credit towards retirement.  He also requests that the diagnosis of a personality disorder be expunged from his records.

3.  The applicant states that medical evaluations subsequent to his discharge indicate that the original diagnosis of a personality disorder was incorrect.  He indicates that the proper diagnosis should have been acute adjustment disorder secondary to extreme stress.  He states that the diagnosis of a personality disorder has resulted in adverse consequences including that he was precluded from participating in a Reserve Officer Training Corp (ROTC) program and resulted in significant difficulty in his efforts to reenlist.

4.  The applicant’s counsel contends that the discharge was improper, that the applicant in fact did not have a personality disorder.  Counsel avers that a statement from the applicant’s former company commander clearly shows that the diagnosis of a personality disorder was improperly entered into the applicant’s records as a means to expeditiously remove the applicant from a bad situation. 

5.  Included in the counsel’s submission is a statement from the applicant’s former company commander indicating that he never questioned the applicant’s mental stability.  The company commander states that “separation for personality disorder was deemed the most expedient and painless for everyone involved, but not appropriate.”  He indicates that the discharge for a personality disorder was used only after attempts to afford the applicant reassignment were not acted upon by higher command in order to get the applicant out of a potentially volatile situation.

6.  The Memorandum of Consideration reflecting the Board’s 27 May 1998 review of the applicant’s request is incorporated herein by reference as if wholly set forth.  The applicant’s records show that at the time of his discharge he was credited with over five years of service and that he was serving in the second year of a four-year obligation.

7.  The applicant’s service medical record shows he had a self-referral to mental health.  He was hospitalized on 1 April 1994 for anger management and feeling of homicidal ideation following the discovery that his wife had given him herpes, had been having an affair and intended to divorce him.  His patient discharge summary states that it was recommended that he be administratively discharged for the good of the service if he could not be afforded an expeditious transfer.  The discharge diagnosis was, Axis I adjustment disorder with depressed mood with a deferred Axis II diagnosis.  

8.  A subsequent mental status evaluation report, dated 26 April 1994, shows a diagnosis of a personality disorder, not otherwise specified and recommended separation under Army Regulation (AR) 40-501 and AR 635-200, chapter 5 for an unspecified Personality Disorder.  The applicant waived his rights to refute the diagnosis and the proposed discharge.  He was separated with an honorable discharge on 24 May 1994.

9.  The applicant’s service records and enlisted evaluations show no adverse actions.  His company commander reports that the problems that the applicant was having had only minimal impact on his performance and effectiveness within the unit. 

10.  The applicant reports that he waited the required two years following his discharge before attempting to reenter the service and participate in a ROTC program.  He reports that his efforts met with negative results due to the diagnosis of a personality disorder.  To counter this diagnosis, in April of 1997, the applicant underwent a battery of tests, at the St. Joseph Regional Medical Center in Lewiston, Idaho, including the MMPI-2 and the MCMI-II psychological evaluations.  The medical opinion rendered following this evaluation was that the applicant had no manifestations of any mental illness or indications of a personality disorder. 

11.  The applicant was again evaluated in concert with his attempts to reenlist in December 1999.  The Chief of Mental Health at Fort Rucker, Alabama reviewed the applicant’s prior medical records and afforded him a comprehensive examination.  This doctor’s opinion was that there was no indication that the applicant had a personality disorder.  He further opined that what the applicant had been suffering from was an acute situational adjustment disorder at the time of his discharge.  He further opined that there is no evidence to support a diagnosis of a personality disorder at any time.  He determined that the applicant met procurement and retention standards.

12.  Subsequent to the applicant’s submission of his request for reconsideration the staff of the Board received a phone call from the training command at Fort Jackson, S.C.  In a phone conversation, from the applicant’s training company commander, it was learned that the applicant has been accepted for reenlistment and had entered active duty on 11 April 2000 in pay-grade E-3.  He has since then successfully completed refresher training at Fort Jackson, S.C. and is awaiting orders.

13.  It is not the policy of the Board to create or alter service medical records.  Such records are considered to reflect the observations and opinions of the medical examiners at the time they were recorded.

14.  A review this case by the Army Review Boards Agency’s medical advisor yielded the opinion that all of the evidence of record supports a diagnosis of an acute situational adjustment disorder rather than a personality disorder.

15.  Army Regulation (AR) 40-501, Standards of Medical Fitness, chapter 3 lists the medical conditions that may render a servicemember unfit for duty.  Included in this chapter are section 3-32, for affective disorders (mood disorders), 3-35, for personality, sexual or fictitious (feigned) disorders, disorders of impulse control (not elsewhere classified) and section 3-36, for adjustment disorders.  A diagnosis under any of these three conditions may render an individual unfit for duty and warrant administrative separation.

16.  Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. AR 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the US Army Reserve.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes, including RA RE codes.

17.  AR 635-200, chapter 5 provides, in pertinent part, for the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP).  This program provided that an individual who had completed at least 6 months, but less than 36 months of active duty and who demonstrated (by poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally or failure to demonstrate promotion potential) that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards could be separated.

18.  AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3, provides that the Secretary of the Army may approve the discharge of soldiers for the convenience of Government, when it is determined that the discharge would be in the best interest of the Army.  An honorable discharge or a general discharge under honorable conditions may be directed under this separation authority. 

19.  AR 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5, paragraph 5-31, 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.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant had not completed his obligated period of service and could not to be considered for an ETS release.  Further, he had completed more than the maximum 36 months of service for consideration under the expeditious discharge program therefore, it would not be appropriate to use this program as a reason for discharge.

2.  A mental health evaluation conducted at the time of the applicant’s discharge affords the diagnosis of a personality disorder.  The applicant’s record also contains diagnoses of an adjustment disorder (situational) and possible mood disorder.  All three diagnoses met the criteria for consideration of administrative separation under the provisions of AR 40-501.

3.  The Board finds that, regardless of whichever diagnosis was most appropriate, the applicant was shown to be suffering a mental or emotional condition that impacted his ability to serve. This condition, whether or not of a permanent nature, met the criteria for administrative discharge under AR 40-501 based upon the evidence available to his command at that time.

4.  Therefore, the Board concludes that there was no impropriety or inequity in the fact that the applicant was discharged under AR 40-501, therefore there is no justification for reinstatement to active duty with back pay or benefits.

5.  The company commander’s opinion as to an appropriate psychiatric diagnosis or state of the applicant’s mental state is noted but it is not a valid medical opinion.  The more recent medical opinions are noted but as these medical authorities were not present at the time of the applicant’s 1994 evaluation their probative value is limited.  They do, however, raise a question of the proper diagnosis at the time of the applicant’s discharge.  They also raise the question of the severity of condition that the applicant was experiencing and tend to show that it was more likely to have been an acute and transitory problem and not a permanent condition that would bar the applicant from continuation on active duty.  

6.  Taking the hospitalization diagnosis of a situational adjustment disorder and recommendation for transfer, the post-service testing, current medical opinions and the statement from the applicant’s former company commander, the Board finds that to continue to list personality disorder as the narrative reason for separation does create an injustice.

7.  In light of the questions raised about the proper diagnosis, the Board concludes that it would be in the interest of justice to correct the applicant’s records to show that the applicant’s 24 May 1994 honorable discharge was for the convenience of the government by reason of Secretarial Authority.

8. The Board notes that the applicant has reported a history of violent outbursts and uncontrolled temper.  If the applicant’s medical record was altered or expunged it might be impossible to track what actually happened in this case should a similar occurrence arise in the future.  Therefore, it would be inappropriate to expunge the record of all references to these diagnoses. 

9.  However, the continued notation of the finding of a personality disorder in the unrestricted portion of the applicant’s records may create inappropriate negative impressions.  In the interest of justice and consistency of action, it would be appropriate to transfer all references to this diagnosis and the associated actions to the restricted portion of his records.

10.  The Board has not addressed the issue concerning the applicant's RE Code in as much as it is a moot point due to his acceptance back on active duty.

11.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, correcting the applicant’s records as recommended below would rectify an injustice.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:

a.  by voiding the Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214) dated 24 May 1994;

b.  by issuing the individual concerned a new DD Form 214 of the same date, showing the narrative reason for discharge as under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-3 by reason of Secretarial Authority with a separation program designator of JFF; and,

c.  by moving the report of mental health examination, with the diagnosis of a personality disorder, and all administrative records relating to the discharge for a personality disorder to the individual’s restricted fiche.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__EWL__  __CJP___  __TLP__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.______
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000037212	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	20001019	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT PARTIAL 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.	A93.08	
3.	A86.03	
4.	A92.02	
5.	A93.24	
6.