MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           31 JANUARY 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001062577

	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. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		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:  In effect, that the narrative reason for his separation from active duty (personality disorder) be expunged from his separation document.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was discharged “with the stigma of a permanent condition that is incorrect.”  He notes that the VA determined that his “condition” was Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and not a personality disorder.  In support of his request he submits copies of his December 2000 VA rating decision.

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

He entered active duty on 24 January 1986, at the age of 22, and successfully completed basic and advanced individual training as a military policeman, prior to being assigned to Germany in June 1986.  Within days of his arrival in Germany, the applicant was involved in a motor vehicle accident, which resulted in multiple contusions and a fractured rib.  His service medical records indicate that the accident occurred on 18 June 1986 (location unknown), that he was admitted to Landstuhl Army Medical Center on 19 June 1986 and returned to duty the following day.  He had several follow up visits for complaints of low back pain and shoulder pain but there is no indication that he was ever granted a permanent physical profile or that he was unable to perform his military duties as a result of the motor vehicle accident.

His service medical records indicate that he was seen by health officials for an “alcohol incident in December” 1986 and in February 1987 was medically referred to the command’s ADAPCP (Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program).  He completed the program in June 1987 and in August 1987 was once again referred to the program, this time by his unit commander.

On 6 August 1987 the applicant was referred to Psychiatric Services at the Community Counseling Center-North Point, in Worms, Germany.  The referral resulted from an incident in which the applicant “reported for duty apparently under the influence” and when confronted “had to be restrained, banged his head on the wall and spoke incoherently about being a civilian.”  The evaluating psychiatrist concluded the applicant suffered from alcohol abuse and a Borderline Personality Disorder.

In September 1987 the applicant was permanently disqualified “from Nuclear Duty Positions” associated with the Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) under the provisions of Army Regulation 50-5 (Nuclear Surety).  The PRP ensures that each person who performs nuclear duties in support of the Department of Defense’s nuclear weapons program (including security positions) meet the highest possible standards of reliability.  The applicant’s disqualification was based on alcohol abuse and a personality disorder.

A mental status evaluation, conducted on 19 October 1987, also concluded the applicant suffered from alcohol abuse and a Borderline Personality Disorder.  A civilian psychiatrist at Landstuhl Army Medical Center rendered the diagnosis.  She recommended separation “because the disorder is so severe that the soldier’s ability to function in the military environment is significantly impaired.”

On 2 November 1987 the applicant’s unit commander initiated action to administratively separate the applicant from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13 (personality disorder).  The commander cited the applicant’s “history of personality disorder” as the basis for his recommendation and recommended he receive an honorable discharge.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation and submitted a statement in his own behalf.  In his statement he noted that he “tried every means possible to be retained in the U.S. Army” and in his job as a military policeman.  He stated that his request for a “reevaluation” by the mental Out Patient Department was denied and that his chain of command refused to help him.  

The separation action was approved and on 4 December 1987 the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-2 with an honorable characterization of service.  Item 28 (narrative reason for separation) on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) reflects “personality disorder.”  Item 25 (separation authority) reflects “AR 635-200 Chap 5-13.”

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, provides for the administrative separation of soldiers with a personality disorder that interferes with assignment to or performance of duty.  A physician trained in psychiatry and psychiatric diagnosis must have established the diagnosis of personality disorder.

Army Regulation 635-5 establishes the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  In pertinent part, it directs that the regulatory authority authorizing the separation will be entered in item number 25 of the DD Form 214.  Item number 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), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated reasons.  It indicates that "personality disorder” is the appropriate narrative reason for discharge when the authority is "AR 635-200, paragraph 5-13."

Subsequent to the applicant’s separation, he was granted a 10 percent service connected disability rating by the VA for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), retroactive to 28 October 1997.  The December 2000 rating decision noted that the VA had diagnosed the applicant with a personality disorder during an examination conducted in February 1997.  It also indicated that the applicant’s “diagnosis of Personality Disorder in service…does not seem to have been based on as extensive an examination as [the applicant] has currently received in the private section.”  The VA concluded that the “preponderance of the objective evidence now points to a finding that as least part of [the applicant’s] psychiatric condition is the result of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder linked to his traumatic auto accident in service, although there are probably other non-service connected factors.”

The Diagnostic and Statistical manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) states that essential feature of Borderline Personality Disorder is a pervasive pattern of instability of interpersonal relationships, self-image, and affects, and marked impulsivity that begins in early adulthood and is present in a variety of contexts.  It also notes that there is considerable variability in the course of Borderline Personality Disorder and that during an individual’s 30s and 40s the majority of individuals with this disorder attain greater stability in their relationships and vocational functioning.  It states that some types of Personality Disorders (notably Antisocial and Borderline) tend to become less evident or to remit with age.

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.  The Board notes that the applicant’s Borderline Personality Disorder was diagnosed on at least two different occasions while he was in the Army, by two different psychiatrists, and that the VA again diagnosed him in 1997.  The fact that the VA may have concluded, in 2000, that the “preponderance of the objective evidence now points to a finding that at least part of [the applicant’s] psychiatric condition is the result of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder” is not evidence that the original diagnosis was in error.  In fact information contained in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition) suggests that Borderline Personality Disorders become less evident or remit as a person ages, particularly during a person’s 30s and 40s.  The applicant was 37 when the December 2000 VA evaluation was rendered.  Additionally, the Board notes that the VA did not say the applicant never had a personality disorder, only that “at least part” of his “psychiatric condition” was the result of PTSD.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  His DD Form 214 accurately reflects the appropriate separation authority in item number 25 and narrative reason for separation in item number 28.

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 that requirement.

4.  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

__RVO__  __EJA___  __RKS__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001062577	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020131	
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.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.