MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           18 JUNE 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002069952

	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:

	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		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, physical disability retirement or discharge.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That he should have received a medical discharge instead of an administrative discharge.  He submits copies of two reports of psychiatric evaluations, a copy of his DD Form 214, a copy of a letter from the Defense Finance and Accounting Service to a Member of Congress, and a copy of a bonus recoupment worksheet.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Army for four years on 10 November 1999 in pay grade E-4.  The 7 October 1999 report of medical examination completed prior to his enlistment shows that he had received counseling in 1998 and in May 1999 for anxiety.  He was medically qualified for enlistment with a physical profile serial of 1 1 1 1 1 1.  He completed training and in June 2000 was assigned to a field artillery battalion in Germany.

On 1 August 2000 the applicant received his initial monthly counseling from his platoon sergeant, concerning his responsibilities, duties, and conduct.  On          1 September 2000 he was again counseled, informed that he needed to improve his technical skills and improve his appearance.  His counseling form the following month indicates that while his performance in some areas was satisfactory, he needed to improve in other areas of his job.  That form shows that he was technically lacking [in his job].  A 1 November 2000 counseling form shows similar remarks by his platoon sergeant, who stated that his progress technically was slow, and that he complained of everything while doing the same thing.  The applicant stated that he could not work effectively with certain personnel in his section, and that he would work harder to improve his performance. 

On 1 and 2 November 2000 the applicant prepared memorandums relating to his problems with his section leader, a Sergeant “M.”  In a 2 November 2000 memorandum to his platoon sergeant, the applicant related incidents where his behavior to his section leader was unprofessional.

On 1 December 2000 his section leader, Sergeant “M” counseled the applicant concerning his daily duties, the scope of his duties, his responsibilities, competence, physical fitness/military bearing, leadership, training, accountability, and appointed duties.  The section leader and the applicant both signed the counseling memorandum.

On 6 December 2000 the applicant was counseled for being late for formation.  The applicant disagreed with the counseling remarks, stating that the information was inaccurate.  In a memorandum that he prepared to his section leader on that same date, he again stated that the information was incorrect, that the corrective training that he was given [for being late] was unfair, that his platoon sergeant was abusing his authority against him.  In a 6 December 2000 memorandum to his section leader, platoon sergeant, first sergeant, company commander, and legal agency, he made a formal complaint against his platoon sergeant, alleging unprofessional behavior and incompetent leadership.

On 13 January 2001 the applicant prepared a statement concerning a verbal and threatening altercation with a fellow soldier, stating among other things, that the soldier, a Private First Class (PFC) did not respect his rank, that he was threatening him.  The applicant stated that he would not work in an unsafe environment.

On 16 January 2001 the applicant was counseled concerning the incident with the PFC, his inability to get along with personnel in his section, his constant complaints, and his attitude.  The applicant stated that he disagreed with his section leader’s view, stating that there were serious legal and personal safety issues between himself and the PFC, because he had been verbally abused and physically threatened.  He disagreed with the section leader’s statements that his complaints were self serving, and he requested a meeting with members of his chain of command.  He stated that he wanted to stay in the Army and would seek continued guidance concerning his attitude.  He stated that he would work to show respect to his peers and superiors.  He requested copies of all his counseling statements and legal statements. 

On 19 January 2001 the applicant was counseled concerning his disrespect to an NCO, his military bearing, and his responsibilities.  He replied by writing a four page document pertaining to the problems that he had with a Sergeant “L” and stated that he wanted his legal issues addressed, a meeting with members of his chain of command, and a meeting with the Inspector General.  He requested copies of all documents, and that his issues be addressed fairly, openly, and in a legal manner.

In a 28 January 2001 memorandum to members of his chain of command, the Army mental health department, and the Army legal agency, the applicant provided a chronology of events concerning his problems with his platoon sergeant, section sergeant, and the PFC mentioned above.  He mentioned that he had written a memorandum alleging abuse by his platoon sergeant, and went to the staff duty office to submit it, but became emotional and started to cry and feel angry about the situation that he was in.  Eventually, he stated that he was counseled by the Chaplain and by his commanding officer.

The applicant prepared three more memorandums, two dated 29 January 2001, and one dated the following day.  He outlined the chronology of events concerning his issues for the week 10 January 2001 to 19 January 2001, and stated that he and a Sergeant First Class “Y” went to the mental health clinic for the first of two appointments for a psychiatric evaluation ordered by his commanding officer.  In the second memorandum he talked about a verbal altercation that he had with Sergeant “L.”  In the memorandum of 30 June 2001, he discussed an unsatisfactory meeting he had with the acting first sergeant, a meeting that he had with his commanding officer, and his work in the training room, where he complained of having to perform menial work.  He stated that at approximately 2000 hours he went to the staff duty office to see if he could use a word processor to prepare that day’s record of events.

The applicant was counseled on two occasions by his section leader on              1 February 2001, one a performance counseling for the month of January 2001, and another, a counseling informing him that he was not recommended to appear before a promotion board.

On 23 February 2001 the applicant’s commanding officer recommended that the applicant receive a mental health evaluation.

On 8 March 2001 the applicant prepared another memorandum to a Sergeant “Mor,” stating that NCO failed in his leadership responsibilities.

A 19 March 2001 report of mental status evaluation revealed that the applicant’s behavior was agitated and anxious; his mood depressed and anxious; and that he had themes of feeling victimized and ill-treated within his unit.  The psychiatrist diagnosed his condition as personality disorder, not otherwise specified, social phobia, generalized anxiety disorder, and adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotions and conduct.  She stated that the applicant met the medical standards for retention in the Army, that he was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and that he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings.  She stated that the diagnosis of personality disorder indicated that the applicant had a long history of interpersonal and emotional conflicts of the type that led to his outburst prompting mental health referral; and that it was possible that the outbursts would continue, and lead to an eventual recommendation for separation from the military based on psychiatric factors.  She recommended, however, that he be allowed a trial of duty, that he be allowed to transfer to a job at a separate battalion, as was being considered, and that he follow up on psychiatric treatment.  

On 30 March 2001 he requested to his commanding officer that he be scheduled for a meeting with legal assistance concerning his financial entitlements, labor entitlements, to include a possible reclassification in order to train to be an officer, and his rights regarding a separation from the Army.

The applicant received performance counseling on 9 April and 11 April 2001 by a Sergeant “Mor,” the unit training NCO.  He was informed that he was not recommended to appear before a promotion board and that his performance was unsatisfactory.  The applicant stated that his performance was affected by the stress his former supervisors put on him.  He requested transfer to another battalion. 

A 17 April 2001 report of medical examination indicates that the applicant was medically qualified for separation.  In the report of medical history that he furnished for the examination, the applicant listed over 20 medical problems, both past and present, to include anxiety disorder and depression.

On 25 April 2001 the applicant was counseled for being disrespectful to an NCO. He disagreed with the counseling information, but stated that he was remaining silent until he talks to a lawyer and to his commanding officer.

On 11 May 2001 the applicant’s commanding officer counseled the applicant, informing him that he had to undergo a mental evaluation prior to his separation from the Army.

A 12 May 2001 report of mental status evaluation differed little from that of the  19 March 2001 report – that the applicant was diagnosed with a personality disorder.  That same examining psychiatrist stated that the applicant had a chronic, deeply ingrained, maladaptive pattern of behavior causing him to be administratively unfit for duty.  She stated that it was unlikely that any effort to rehabilitate him into a satisfactory member of the military would be successful, and that his disorder was of such severity that it significantly impaired his ability to function effectively in a military environment.  She recommended that the applicant be administratively separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, stating that prolonged retention on active duty could predictably result in management problems for command. 

On 14 June 2001 the applicant’s commanding officer notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, because of a personality disorder.  He stated that he was recommending that the applicant receive an honorable discharge.

The applicant consulted with counsel and stated that he had been advised of the basis for the contemplated action, its effects, the rights available to him, and the effects of any action taken by him in waiving his rights.  The applicant submitted a 14 page statement, stating that he joined the Army to have a job, gain work experience, serve his country, further develop social skills, be independent, and get away from an environment that fostered negative and abusive personal relationships with some of his family and other people nearby.  He stated that he had problems and potential, that he had an anxiety disorder which was pronounced under stress and when people were abusive, critical, and/or authoritative toward him.  He stated that he dealt with problems inappropriately, at times with emotional outbursts; however, bureaucrats [in the Army] did not respond to his problems, and in fact, were a part of his problems.  He continued by recounting the problems that he had with personnel in his unit, stated that he wished that he could have served his four years in the Army, but stated that he realized that bureaucracy is the Army instead of the Army being a bureaucracy.  He stated that personal courage is a value he learned in the Army – facing moral adversity against unfairness and knowing that he had to speak, if not for himself, but for others to help the many soldiers who still have a chance to be soldiers and succeed.  

The applicant’s commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be discharged from the Army.  On 28 June 2001 the separation authority approved the recommendation, stating that the applicant’s service would be characterized as honorable.  He stated that unearned portions of enlistment/reenlistment bonuses would be recouped if the applicant was a bonus recipient.

The applicant was discharged on 7 July 2001 because of a personality disorder.  His DD Form 214 shows a separation code of “JFX.”   

In a 12 December 2001 letter the DFAS at Kansas City informed a Member of Congress that the applicant’s debt to the government of over $4,000.00 was a valid debt which was due to the recoupment of the unearned portion of an enlistment bonus, and that all pay due at separation, including accrued leave, was applied toward repayment of the debt.  The DFAS called attention to the bonus recoupment worksheet that the applicant submitted with his application.  The DFAS stated that based upon the applicant’s discharge with a personality disorder the bonus recoupment was proper.  His recoupment was based on his separation program designator of “JFX.”

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.   

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) offers specified diagnostic criteria for each mental disorder as guidelines for making diagnoses.  The purpose of DSM-IV is to provide clear descriptions of diagnostic categories in order to enable clinicians and investigators to diagnose, communicate about, study, and treat people with various mental disorders.  
A multiaxial system involves an assessment on several axes, each of which refers to a different domain of information, that may help the clinician plan treatment and predict outcome.  There are five axes included in the DSM-IV multiaxial classification.

Personality disorder not otherwise specified is an Axis II disorder.  The essential feature of a personality disorder is an enduring pattern of inner experience and behavior that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual’s culture and is manifested in at least two of the following areas:  cognition, affectivity, interpersonal functions, or impulse control.  This enduring pattern is inflexible and pervasive across a broad range of personal and social situations and leads to clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.  The pattern is stable and of long duration, and its onset can be traced back at least to adolescence or early adulthood.   

Army Regulation 635-5-1 prescribes the specific authorities, reasons for separating soldiers from active duty, and the separation codes to be used on the DD Form 214.  A separation code of “JFX” is mandated for a soldier separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, for a personality disorder.

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 applicant’s condition throughout his assignment in Germany is marked by an inability to work with people, anxiety, depression, suspiciousness, and emotional outbursts, among other conditions.  The applicant himself states that he had anxiety problems that were pronounced when he was under stress, and that he had abusive and negative problems with some members of his family and other people before he enlisted in the Army.  His problems are documented in the counseling statements that he received and in his numerous comments on those counseling statements.  A psychiatrist has determined that the applicant had a personality disorder.  

2.  The applicant's administrative separation because of a personality disorder was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  His separation code of “JFX” is correct.  

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

4.  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.

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

__KAK__  __MHM__  __ALR  __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002069952	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020618	
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.	177	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.