MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            30 January 2001   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000041624

	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	
	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy		Member	
	Ms. Brenda F. Hirschi		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 her reason for separation be changed to reflect simply “discharge” or “disability.”

APPLICANT STATES:  That her current reason (personality disorder) does not fully explain the basis for her separation.  She notes that she was raped at Fort Dix on 4 July 1989 and although there was never a conviction “due to technical errors with the evidence (forensics)” she continued to experience symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), including emotional distress, depression, suicidal thoughts, sleep difficulties, and social withdrawal.  She states she had difficulty maintaining “an emotional and mental state stable enough to not have it effect my relations with people….”  As a result, she states she was released from active duty.  The applicant notes that the VA granted her a service connected disability rating for Dysthymia (clinical depression) and PTSD.  She states the words “personality disorder” on her separation document “has and will have negative effects on certain employment opportunities” and feels that under the circumstances the statement is unjust.  In support of her request she submits a copy of her VA compensation document. 

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

She entered active duty on 25 January 1989 for a period of 4 years.  She successfully completed basic and advanced individual training and on 19 June 1989 was assigned to Fort Dix as a legal specialist.

On 3 June 1992, while assigned to the 2nd Infantry Division in Korea, the applicant was notified by her commander that he was recommending she be separated from active duty as a result of her “being diagnosed as a personality disorder.”  The commander indicated that the applicant “has mentioned contemplating suicide on more than one occasion and [did] not feel that she should be left in a military environment.”  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation, consulted with counsel and waived her attendant rights.

Records available to the Board do not contain copies of the applicant’s separation physical examination or her mental status evaluation.  However, her commander did note that both documents were included as enclosures to his separation package.

The recommendation was approved and on 17 June 1992 the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13.  Block 28 (narrative reason for separation) on her DD Form 214 (certificate or release or discharge from active duty) reflects “Personality Disorder.”

The VA document provided by the applicant in support of her request notes that she was being compensated for “Dysthymic Disorder with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” with a 30 percent disability rating.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13 established the policies and provisions for the administrative separation of personnel with a deeply-ingrained maladaptive pattern of behavior of long duration that interferes with the soldier’s ability to perform duty.  A physician trained in psychiatry and psychiatric diagnosis must have established the diagnosis of personality disorder.  The service of a solider separated under this paragraph will be characterized as honorable unless an entry-level separation is required. 

Army Regulation 635-5 establishes the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  In pertinent part, it directs that block 28 will contain the narrative reason for separation, as shown in Army Regulation 
635-5-1 based on the regulatory authority.  

Army Regulation 635-5-1 prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives) and the reasons for the separation of members from active military service.  It indicates that “personality disorder” is the appropriate narrative reason for discharge when the authority is "AR 635-200, paragraph 5-13."  

Army Regulation 40-501 states that personality disorders may render an individual administratively unfit rather than unfit because of physical disability.  Interference with performance of effective duty in association with these conditions will be dealt with through appropriate administrative channels.  It also states that transient, situational maladjustment due to acute or special stress do not render an individual unfit because of physical disability, but rather may be the basis for administrative separation if recurrent and causing interference with military duty.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders fourth edition notes that Dysthymic Disorder is characterized by at least 2 years of depressed mood for more days than not, accompanied by additional depressive symptoms that do not meet the criteria for Major Depressive Episode.  It falls under the general heading of “Mood Disorders.”

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.  While the VA may be compensating the applicant for depression that is not an indication that her evaluation of a personality disorder by the military was invalid.

2.  The actions by the Army in this case were proper, and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.

3.  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 this requirement.

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

5.  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

___aao_____  __teo_____  __bfh___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041624	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010130	
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.	108.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.