PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           6 February 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000040601

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		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 that the narrative reason for her separation as shown on her Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214, be changed.

3.  The applicant states that she has been diagnosed by a psychiatrist as having another disability and not suffering from a personality disorder.  She provides a general medical exam and mental disorders examination dated 30 June 1998.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that she was born on 1 February 1959.  She enlisted in the U. S. Army Reserve Delayed Entry Program (DEP) on         22 April 1992.  She enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 May 1992.  She completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 94B (Food Service Specialist).  She was assigned to Germany on 8 November 1995.  (Her Personnel Qualification Record, part II, DA Form 2-1, erroneously shows her duty MOS as 95B, food specialist.  MOS 95B is military police.)  She served in Bosnia from 28 December 1995 to 11 October 1996.

5.  On 3 February 1998, the applicant was evaluated by a social worker at an unknown clinic.  The applicant had stated the reason she was there was “stress” and the lack of control she had in making major decisions because the military had control over her life.  She reported being married for 8 years to an active duty Air Force man and after the divorce she joined the Army in 1992.  She reported experiencing difficulty with the military beginning in 1995.  She had been depressed and had feelings of hopelessness for 2 years, since her father died.  She believed those in her command were against her.  She was referred to psychiatry for a mental health/fitness for duty evaluation.

6.  On 14 February 1998, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being incapacitated for the proper performance of her duties as a result of previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor or drugs.  She was sentenced to be reduced to pay grade E-3, suspended, to forfeit $325.00 pay for 1 month and to be restricted and perform extra duty for  14 days.  The suspended reduction was later vacated. 

7.  A General Counseling Form, DA Form 4856, shows that the applicant was counseled for the month of February 1998 for displaying numerous acts of conduct unbecoming a soldier.  

8.  A DA Form 4856 dated 4 March 1998 shows that the applicant “…when reporting for your extra duty you threw a fit and refused to perform your extra duty…”

9.  A DA Form 4856 dated 4 March 1998 shows that due to the applicant’s erratic behavior, her command believed she might have had a “more deeply rooted problem than normal unit and community counseling can deal with” and she was referred for a psychiatric evaluation.

10.  On 16 March 1998, a mental status evaluation diagnosed the applicant with personality disorder, not otherwise specified.  The condition was a deeply ingrained, maladaptive pattern of behavior of long duration which interfered with  her ability to perform duty.  There was no evidence of a mental condition that would require disposition through medical channels.  She was found to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in administrative proceedings and to be mentally responsible.  She was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by her command.

11.  On an unknown date, the applicant’s commander initiated separation action on the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-13, Personality Disorder.

12.  On 4 May 1998, the applicant requested consulting counsel and acknowledged notification of the action.  She submitted a statement in her own behalf.  She noted that she had had a good record when she was assigned to Germany.  Before she could even unpack her bags she was attached to the 92d Military Police Company and deployed to Bosnia.  Two weeks later her father died.  After 10 months of deployment she returned to her unit to find they were deactivating.  She had endured a lot of major changes in the last 6 years that she handled well.  She should not be made to suffer for the rest of her life now that she made a mistake.  She requested her discharge be changed to a hardship or retention control point (sic) or that she be allowed to finish her enlistment.  

13.  On 12 May 1998, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be discharged with an Honorable Discharge Certificate. 

14.  On 16 May 1998, the applicant was discharged, with an honorable characterization of service, in pay grade E-3, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-13, Personality Disorder.  She had completed      5 years, 11 months and 12 days of creditable active service with no lost time.

15.  On 30 June 1998, the applicant was examined by a civilian psychologist.  She reported no medical difficulties but was concerned that she was discharged from the Army with a diagnosis of personality disorder which she felt was unwarranted.  The applicant had stated that she was a cook although her         DD Form 214 mistakenly indicated she was in the military police, the DD Form 214 did not give her credit for all the time she served and gave the incorrect date of her entry into the service.  She reported experiencing sexual harassment in Germany after her return from Bosnia but after she complained she was punished, not the male soldier.  Her female supervisor harassed her and caused problems with the first sergeant.  It was not the civilian psychologist’s impression that the applicant had a personality disorder.  The civilian psychologist diagnosed her with adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood.  

16.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  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.  Paragraph 5-18 sets the policy and prescribes procedures for separating members with other designated physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability and excluding conditions appropriate for separation processing under paragraphs    5-11 or 5-13.  Such conditions may include disorders manifesting disturbances of emotional control or behavior sufficiently severe that the soldier’s ability to effectively perform military duties is significantly impaired.

17.  The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition    (DSM-IV) states that the essential feature of an Adjustment Disorder is the development of clinically significant emotional or behavioral symptoms in response to an identifiable psychosocial stressor or stressors.  The subtype “with depressed mood” should be used when the predominant manifestations are symptoms such as depressed mood, tearfulness, or feelings of hopelessness.  A Personality Disorder is defined as an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture, is pervasive and inflexible, has an onset in adolescence or early adulthood, is stable over time, and leads to distress or impairment.  

18.  In the processing of this case an advisory opinion was obtained from the Office of the Surgeon General (OTSG).  OTSG opined that the applicant’s claim should be denied.  She had been evaluated by a qualified mental health clinician who made the diagnosis of Personality Disorder, Not Otherwise Specified and, based upon the materials provided, there was no justifiable reason to question the validity of that diagnosis.  

19.  A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant.  A Veterans Service Officer responded in her behalf.  She noted in part that a personality disorder diagnosis requires an evaluation of the individual’s long-term patterns of functioning and the features must be evident by early adulthood.  The applicant was over 30 years old upon her enlistment, not in her early adulthood.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board understands that the social worker who wrote up the initial             3 February 1998 evaluation was not a trained doctor (a social worker is a Medical Service Corps officer); however, social workers are trained specialists.  From the social worker’s write-up it appears the applicant met the diagnostic features of an Adjustment Disorder, i. e., experiencing difficulty with the military beginning in 1995 and feelings of depression and hopelessness since her father died 2 years previously.  The Board cannot determine what the applicant might have said during her 16 March 1998 mental status evaluation that would lead the evaluating psychiatrist to make the diagnosis of Personality Disorder.  There is no evidence in the mental status evaluation write-up to indicate that she met the diagnostic features of a Personality Disorder, i. e., an enduring pattern of behavior that was pervasive and inflexible and had an onset in adolescence or early adulthood.  (The applicant was 33 years old when she first enlisted.)

2.  The Board presumes that the psychiatrist who evaluated her and made the diagnosis was professionally competent; therefore, it would not be appropriate to change the applicant’s service medical records or the diagnosis.  However, the Board acknowledges that the phrase “Personality Disorder” can have negative connotations in the minds of civilian employers.  Therefore, notwithstanding the advisory opinion, the Board concludes that it would be appropriate to resolve any doubt concerning the differences in diagnosis in favor of the applicant.  As a matter of equity the applicant’s DD Form 214 should be corrected to show she was administratively separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-18, Physical Condition, Not a Disability.

3.  The Board notes the applicant’s DD Form 214, item 11 does reflect an incorrect primary MOS, presumably based upon the incorrect entry on her DA Form 2-1.  It should reflect 94B10, Food Service Specialist.

4.  There is no error on the applicant’s DD Form 214, item 12.  Item 12a is the date entered on active duty; i. e., the date the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  It is not meant to be the date she enlisted in the DEP, which is not active duty service.  Her enlistment contract shows she enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 May 1992.  Service in a DEP subsequent to 1 January 1985 is not creditable service for pay purposes; therefore, the applicant’s service in the DEP from        22 April through 20 May 1992 is not authorized for entry in item 12e.

5.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That the applicant’s DD Form 214 be corrected by showing that she was discharged from the service on 16 May 1998 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-18, separation code JFV, narrative reason for separation Physical Condition, Not a Disability.

2.  That the applicant’s DD Form 214, item 11 be corrected to show her primary MOS as 94B10, Food Service Specialist.

3.  That the applicant be issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting all of the above noted corrections.

BOARD VOTE:  

__rvo___  __wtm___  __tl____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000040601	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010206	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.