MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:         

	BOARD DATE:           18 July 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000037832

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Kenneth H. Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon 		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson 		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 the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file.

	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 her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to show that she was discharged for neurosis instead of a personality disorder.  

She states, in effect, that she was analyzed for neurosis and is being paid for that condition.  

PURPOSE:  To determine whether the application was submitted within the time limit established by law, and if not, whether it is in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Army for three years on 9 January 1985, completed her training at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, and was promoted to pay grade E-4 on        1 June 1986.  In November 1986 she was assigned to an engineer company in Germany as a photo/layout specialist. 

In a 6 April 1987 report of psychiatric evaluation, a psychiatrist at the Landstuhl Army Regional Medical Center stated that the applicant had been hospitalized from 6 February to 17 February 1987 because of emotional upset, depressed mood, and a statement that she was unable to cope further with her job and military life style.  She had some complaints of depressed mood, excessive tearfulness, feelings of inadequacy and incompetency in doing her job.  She showed evidence of marked dependent personality structure.  The doctor stated that the applicant was alert, cooperative, oriented.  No delusions or hallucinations were present.  Affect was appropriate, not depressed.  Mood was depressed.  Memory was intact.  Judgment and insight were essentially within normal limits.  Her condition was diagnosed as adjustment disorder with depressed mood and dependent personality disorder.  He stated that she showed evidence of a marked dependent personality disorder which markedly impaired her ability to perform military duties.  He recommended that she be administratively discharged.  He stated that she was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate.

A 15 April 1987 counseling form indicates that the applicant had complained to the first sergeant on 6 February 1987 that she could not adapt to military life.  She was referred to a psychiatrist, and admitted to the hospital.  The applicant’s commanding officer indicated that he talked with a doctor and a request for a report of mental status was formally provided to that doctor in order to initiate the applicant’s discharge for a personality disorder.  The applicant’s commanding officer advised the applicant on 15 April 1987 of his intent to recommend that she be discharged from the Army due to her personality disorder.  The applicant acknowledged that she had been counseled and concurred that the information provided by her commanding officer accurately reflected the counseling session.

A 5 May 1987 report of mental status evaluation indicates that the applicant’s behavior was normal, she was fully alert and fully oriented, her mood or affect was unremarkable, her thinking process clear, and her thought process normal.  She had the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings.

A 5 May 1987 report of medical examination indicates that the applicant was medically qualified for separation with a physical profile serial of 1 1 1 1 1 1.  In the report of medical history she furnished for the examination, the applicant stated that she was in good health, but she took shots twice a week for an allergy.  She also indicated that she had or had had depression or excessive worry, had tuberculosis, pain or pressure in her chest, chronic cough, sinusitis, frequent trouble sleeping, and had attempted suicide.  She stated that she had a nervous breakdown and indicated that she had been hospitalized. 

The applicant’s commanding officer notified the applicant that he was initiating action to discharge the applicant from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13.  He stated that if the separation action was approved she would receive an honorable characterization of her service.

The applicant consulted with counsel and stated that she understood the basis for the contemplated action, its effects, the rights available to her, and the effect of any actions taken by her in waiving those rights.  She elected not to submit statements in her own behalf.

On 8 May 1987 the applicant’s commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be discharged because of her personality disorder.  

The separation authority approved the recommendation on 21 May 1987.  The applicant was discharged on 18 June 1987.  She had 2 years, 5 months, and    10 days of service.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  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.
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.  Failure to file within 3 years may be excused by a correction board if it finds it would be in the interest of justice to do so.

DISCUSSION:  The alleged error or injustice was, or with reasonable diligence should have been discovered on 18 June 1987, the date she was discharged.  The time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 18 June 1990.

The application is dated 31 January 2000 and the applicant has not explained or otherwise satisfactorily demonstrated by competent evidence that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to apply within the time allotted.

DETERMINATION:  The subject application was not submitted within the time required.  The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested or to excuse the failure to file within the time prescribed by law.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  EXCUSE FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___gdp__  ___mvt__  ___eb___  CONCUR WITH DETERMINATION

    Carl W. S. Chun
    Director, Army Board for Correction
	                of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000037832	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000718	
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.  270	142.00	
2.	110.00	
3.	124.01	
4.		
5.		
6.