MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            10 April 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000049838

	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. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Sherri V. Ward		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		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 his narrative reason for separation be changed to show that he was medically retired with a disability percentage rating equal to the amount he would have been qualified for had he been medically retired at the time of his discharge or if he was separated with severance pay.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he elected to exercise his option to reenter the service and he was found to be medically disqualified and not a viable candidate. He states he was diagnosed as having a personality disorder and the diagnosis falls in the category of compensated conditions.  He further states that his discharge was totally “messed up” and it needs to be corrected once and for all.  He concludes by stating that if members of the Army who were selected for discharge under the Qualitative Management Program received early retirement then his request should be honored because his request is not without merit.  In support of his application he submits a copy of a previous decision made by this Board dated 25 May 1994 denying his request for promotion and retirement for length of service.  He also submits a letter dated 18 April from the Military Entrance Processing Station informing him that he is disqualified for entry into the Armed Forces; a letter from the Office of the Chief Legislative Liaison to a representative in Congress dated 23 June 1997; and a letter dated 14 May 1998 from the United States Recruiting Battalion at Maxwell Air Force Base informing him that he is disqualified for further military service.

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

After he completed over 10 years and 10 months of Naval service, he enlisted in the Army on 18 September 1984, for 3 years in the pay grade of E-6 to attend a warrant officer candidate course at Aberdeen Proving Ground.  He failed to complete the course; however, on 12 July 1985 he successfully completed training as a track vehicle repairer.  On 8 June 1988, he was transferred to Korea.

While in Korea, the applicant was seen by a physician on 13 January 1989 after he began displaying uncontrolled anger.  He expressed a desire to hurt others, even imagining ways to kill them or himself.  He was experiencing no insomnia and no hallucinations.  He was diagnosed as having an impulse control disorder with temper outbursts.  He was referred for psychiatric evaluation.

On 19 January 1989, he was seen by a psychiatrist trained in psychiatry and was diagnosed as having a depression disorder, not otherwise specified, agitated.  He was treated with medication and told to return for a follow-up in 3 weeks.  By 14 February 1989 his symptoms had improved.  He continued to be treated with medication and he continued to make follow-up appointments.

On 8 August 1989 the applicant was admitted to Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) for a psychiatric evaluation.  The psychiatrist determined that he was suffering from suicidal and homicidal ideation and he was diagnosed as having major depression, recurrent, in remission, and a histrionic personality disorder, mild, provisional.  He was treated with medication and released from the WRAMC on 24 August 1989.  He was returned to duty with instructions for an outpatient follow-up at the community mental health clinic.

The evidence of record shows that on 14 February 1990, the applicant was counseled after he expressed an interest to be discharged from the Army for the benefit of his family and himself.  Approximately 2 weeks later (27 February 1990), the applicant was counseled again regarding his desire to be discharged from the Army and he assured the commanding officer that his decision to be discharged remained the same.

The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on 5 March 1990.  He was evaluated by a social worker who determined that he manifested periodic emotional liability that was indicative of a pervasive deeply engrained personality disorder.  The social worker further determined that since his condition was periodically disruptive to his duty performance and unit discipline, good order and morale, and since he was strongly requesting separation from the service, it would be for the good of the service to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 13 (personality disorder). The social worker concluded that the applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command.

On 22 March 1990, the applicant was counseled concerning his desire to be discharged from the Army under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 13.  The applicant signed the counseling statement indicating that his request for discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 13 was totally on a voluntary basis, without any external pressure or recommendation, for the benefit of his family and himself.

On 28 March 1990, the applicant was notified that action to eliminate him from the Army under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 13, had been initiated.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification on 30 March 1990 and, after consulting with counsel, he waived his rights and he opted not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 18 April 1990.  Accordingly, on 1 May 1990, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 13 as a result of a personality disorder.  He had completed over 16 years and 5 months of total active service.

On 14 October 1992, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) changed the applicant’s records to show that he was discharged as directed by the Secretary of the Army, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 5, section II.  The ADRB based its decision to change the reason and authority for separation on the 5 March 1990 psychiatric evaluation conducted by the social worker.  The ADRB determined that the discharge was improper as to the reason because the social worker was not a physician trained in psychiatry as required by regulation.

On 25 May 1994, this Board denied the applicant’s request to be promoted to Sergeant First Class and to be retired for length of service.  In addition to the retirement with retroactive back pay and allowances, this Board also denied his request for an additional $350,000.00 for damages; lost of credit rating; loss of past and present earnings; and emotional damages to his family.  The Board determined that the applicant’s 1 May 1990 separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable directives and upon receipt of appropriate medical guidance.  The Board also determined that his separation was not based on the 5 March 1990 diagnosis rendered by a social worker as concluded by the ADRB but, rather, on the 8 August 1989 diagnosis of personality disorder that was rendered by a physician trained in psychiatry.

On 18 April 1997, the applicant was notified by the Chief Medical Officer at the Military Entrance Processing Station, Montgomery, Maxwell Air Force Base that as a result of his military entrance examination, he was found to be medically disqualified for entry into the Armed Forces of the United States.  The determination was based on a diagnosis of personality disorder, not otherwise specified, with paranoid features.  He was told that, although his problem may not reflect current or future employability in civilian life, it is considered disqualifying for military service by current medical standards for enlistment.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5, paragraph 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for personality disorder, and provides, in pertinent part, that a soldier may be separated for personality disorder (not amounting to disability) that interferes with assignment to or performance of duty. The diagnosis of personality disorder must have been established by a physician trained in psychiatry and psychiatric diagnosis.  Separation because of personality disorder is authorized only if the diagnosis concludes that the disorder is so severe that the soldier’s ability to function effectively in the military environment is significantly impaired.

Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 3-35, provides that personality, sexual, or factitious disorders; disorders of impulse control not elsewhere classified; and psychoactive 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.

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.  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. 

2.  The evidence of record clearly shows that he expressed his desire to be discharged several times and was counseled on three separate occasions regarding his desire to be discharged.  He was properly diagnosed as having a personality disorder by a physician trained in psychiatry.  At the time that he signed the counseling form, he maintained that he wanted to be discharged because of a personality disorder.  He included that his request was totally on a voluntary basis without any external pressure.

3.  It appears that the applicant’s request for medical retirement or separation with severance pay is based on the fact that he was diagnosed as having a personality disorder while he was in the Army.  However, on 14 October 1992 the ADRB determined that his discharge was improper and that board directed that the reason and authority for his discharge be changed from personality disorder to as directed by the Secretary of the Army.  His records were corrected accordingly. 

4.  Moreover, if the ADRB had determined that his discharge was proper, his personality disorder rendered him administratively unfit rather than unfit because of physical disability. 

5.  Inasmuch as the applicant did not have any medically unfitting disability which required physical disability processing, there is no basis for physical disability retirement or separation with severance pay.

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

__ja ____  ___sw___  ___gp___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000049838	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2001/04/10	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19900501	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	415	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  416	144.0154.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.