MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            10 DECEMBER 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002070718

	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. Celia L. Adolphi		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Member	
	Mr. Conrad V. Meyer		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 separation.  He requests that the separation code and the narrative reasons for his separation as shown on his DD Form 214 be changed in order for him to apply for medical and psychiatric help from the VA.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That he needs to receive benefits from the VA because he was diagnosed with bipolar disorder.  The VA informed him that he had to get his discharge changed in order to apply for and receive benefits.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Army for 4 years on 7 February 2000.  He completed training and in June 2000 was assigned as a combat engineer with the 9th Engineer Battalion in Germany.

On 3 August 2000 the applicant’s squad leader gave the applicant an initial counseling concerning military appearance, chain of command, maintenance, professionalism, accountability, etc.

The applicant was evaluated by the 1st Infantry Division psychologist on            22 August 2000.  The report of mental status evaluation shows that the applicant 
had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder within the meaning of Army Regulation 40-501, Army Regulation 635-200, and DSM-IV.  It indicated that his condition was a deeply ingrained illness of chronic duration, and that the disorder was so severe that his ability to function effectively with the military was significantly impaired.  His condition and the problems presented by the applicant were not amenable to treatment, hospitalization, transfer, disciplinary action, or reclassification to another specialty.  The psychologist indicated that it was highly unlikely that efforts to rehabilitate or develop the applicant into a satisfactory member of the military would be successful.  He stated that it was in the best interest of the applicant and the Army to expeditiously separate him from active duty; otherwise he would remain a constant potential for suicide and/or a source of severe disruption to unit moral and mission.  The applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings and was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate.

On 30 August 2000 the applicant was counseled because of his failure to follow orders and for being disrespectful to an NCO. 

On 6 September 2000 the applicant received a monthly counseling from his squad leader.  That person informed the applicant that he was a good soldier, and started off well, but toward the end of the month things started to go wrong.  He stated that he missed a lot of training because of his medical condition; however, that was not his fault.  He stated that his room was not up to standards, but has improved a lot.  His squad leader also counseled him on that same day, stating that his conduct and performance would warrant initiation of separation action for unsatisfactory performance or misconduct.  He informed the applicant that his driving privileges, drinking privileges, and pass privileges were suspended until reinstated by the commanding officer.
  
On 8 September 2000 the applicant was counseled because his room was not being cleaned.

On 22 September 2000 the applicant’s squad leader counseled him concerning his performance, stating that he had not improved since being diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and that it would be in his and the Army’s best interest that he be separated because of his personality disorder.

On 5 October 2000 he was again counseled by his squad leader, who stated that he had displayed no improvement since 22 September 2000.  He stated that on several occasions he had severe mood swings, trouble sleeping and eating, that he was depressed, distracted, and distant from the squad and platoon.  He stated that because of his behavior his job performance had been poor.  

On 23 October 2000 the applicant’s commanding officer notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him from the Army for a personality disorder under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13.  He stated that he was recommending that he receive a characterization of service as honorable.

The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed action against him.  He declined the opportunity to consult with counsel, waiving his right to consult with counsel.  He declined to submit statements in his own behalf.  

The applicant’s commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation       635-200, paragraph 5-13.

On 25 October 2000 a Judge Advocate General Corps officer stated that the administrative separation proceedings pertaining to the applicant were legally sufficient.

On 27 October 2000 the separation authority approved the recommendation.  The applicant was discharge on 3 November 2000.  He had 8 months and        27 days of service.

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 diagnosis of personality disorder must have been established by a physician trained in psychiatry and psychiatric diagnosis.  It is described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-IV) of Mental Disorders.  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.  The service of a soldier separated will be characterized as honorable.

The DSM-IV also includes descriptions for a Bipolar I and a Bipolar II disorder.  The essential feature of a Bipolar I disorder is a clinical course that it characterized by the occurrence of one or more manic episodes or mixed episodes.  Often individuals have also had one or more major depressive episodes.  

•	A manic episode is defined by a distinct period during which there is an abnormally and persistently elevated, expansive, or irritable mood.  This period of abnormal mood must last at least 1 week.  The mood disturbance must be accompanied by at least three additional symptoms from a list that includes inflated self-esteem or grandiosity, decreased need for sleep, pressure of speech, flight of ideas, distractibility, increased involvement in goal-directed activities or psychomotor agitation, and excessive involvement in pleasurable activities with a high potential for painful consequences.  If the mood is irritable, at least four of the above symptoms must be present. 
•	A mixed episode is characterized by a period of time, lasting at least         1 week, in which the criteria are met for both a manic episode and a major depressive episode nearly every day.  The individual experiences rapidly alternating moods (sadness, irritability, euphoria) accompanied by symptoms of a manic episode. 

The essential feature of Bipolar II disorder is a clinical course that is characterized by the occurrence of one or more major depressive episodes accompanied by at least one hypomanic episode.

•	Five or more symptoms must have been present for the same 2-week period, representing a change from previous functioning in order to meet the criteria for a major depressive episode.  Symptoms include a depressed mood most of the day, nearly every day; markedly diminished interest or pleasure in all, or almost all, activities most of the day, nearly every day; significant weight loss or weight gain; insomnia or hypersomina nearly every day; psychomotor agitation or retarding nearly every day; fatigue or loss of energy nearly every day; feelings of worthlessness or excessive or inappropriate guilt; diminished ability to think or concentrate, or indecisiveness, nearly every day; and recurrent thoughts of death, recurrent suicidal ideation without a specific plan, or a suicide attempt.
•	A hypomanic episode is defined as a distinct period during which there is an abnormally and persistently elevated, expansive, or irritable mood that lasts at least 4 days.  The period of abnormal mood must be accompanied by at least three additional symptoms from a list [as indicated above in describing the criteria for a manic episode].

Army Regulation 40-501 provides information on medical fitness standards for enlistment, retention, and related policies and procedures.  Certain disorders, e.g., disorders with psychotic features, mood disorders, organic mental disorders, may render a soldier unfit for military duty.  Those disorders are cause for a referral to an Medical Evaluation Board.  Certain other disorders, e.g., personality disorder, disorders of impulse control, psychoactive disorders, also indicated in that regulation, may render an individual administratively unfit rather than unfit because of physical disability. Interference with performance of duty in association with these conditions will be dealt with through appropriate administrative channels.  Transient, situational maladjustments due to acute or special stress do not render an individual unfit because of physical disability, but may be the basis for administrative separation if recurrent and causing interference with military duty.      

Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army physical disability evaluation system and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a soldier is unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating.  It provides for medical evaluation boards (MEB), which are convened to document a soldier’s medical status and duty limitations insofar as duty is affected by the soldier’s status.  A decision is made as to the soldier’s medical qualifications for retention based on the criteria in AR 40-501, chapter 3.  If the MEB determines the soldier does not meet retention standards, the board will recommend referral of the soldier to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).

Physical evaluation boards are established to evaluate all cases of physical disability equitability for the soldier and the Army.  It is a fact finding board to investigate the nature, cause, degree of severity, and probable permanency of the disability of soldiers who are referred to the board; to evaluate the physical condition of the soldier against the physical requirements of the soldier’s particular office, grade, rank or rating; to provide a full and fair hearing for the soldier; and to make findings and recommendation to establish eligibility of a soldier to be separated or retired because of physical disability.

Army Regulation 635-40 provides that according to accepted medical principles, certain abnormalities and residual conditions exist that, when discovered, lead to the conclusion that they must have existed or have started before the individual entered military service.  Examples of these conditions include hereditary conditions.

Title 10, United States Code, chapter 61, provides disability retirement or separation for a member who is physically unfit to perform the duties of his office, rank, grade or rating because of disability incurred while entitled to basic pay.
  
Army Regulation 635-40 states in pertinent part, that disability compensation is not an entitlement acquired by reason of service-incurred illness or injury; rather, it is provided to soldiers whose service is interrupted and they can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service.  

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 diagnosis of the applicant’s condition as shown in the report of mental status evaluation more appropriately describes an individual affected with a personality disorder, not a bipolar disorder as indicated in that report.  The psychologist’s diagnosis that the applicant’s condition was a deeply ingrained illness of chronic (long duration), mirrors the description given in Army Regulation 636-200 for a personality disorder.  Additionally, the psychologist’s reference to that regulation implies a personality disorder.  Army Regulation 635-200 does not provide for an administrative discharge for a bipolar disorder – a disorder which requires a medical evaluation, and possibly, referral to a MEB and a PEB.  

2.  The Board notes that in his report, the psychologist stated that the applicant was cleared for any administrative or judicial action deemed appropriate.  A diagnosis of a bipolar disorder would necessitate referral in the physical evaluation disability system, neither an administrative or judicial action.  The psychologist’s remarks indicate that he did not believe that the applicant’s condition required referral in the physical disability evaluation system. 

3.  The Board also notes that while the psychologist stated that the applicant had a bipolar disorder, other than mention of a suicidal ideation, he did not describe any of the symptoms associated with that disorder.  It would appear that a diagnosis of bipolar disorder would require a thorough evaluation with a detailed diagnosis of a soldier’s mental condition, to include the symptoms that meet the criteria for a bipolar disorder.  While the intent of the psychologist in making his evaluation is not known, he did not provide any diagnosis that would indicate that the applicant had a bipolar disorder. 
4.  Nonetheless, and considering the applicant’s length of service, the evidence suggests that the applicant’s condition existed prior to his enlistment in February 2000.  Consequently, his condition would not have warranted a discharge or retirement for physical disability.      

5.  The Board considers the applicant’s discharge for a personality disorder to be administratively correct.  He has not provided sufficient evidence to warrant the correction which he requests. 

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

7.  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.

8.  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

__CLA __  __TSK_ _  __CVM __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002070718	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20021210	
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.