MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            3 October 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002071888

	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. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Charles Gainor		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 and Authority for discharge currently reflected on his Certificate of Release or Discharge (DD Form 214) be changed and that his military records be corrected accordingly.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That his separation was unjustified as it was based solely on his commander’s recommendation.  He states that there were no medical records to support the commander’s allegations and that his commander never attempted to help him with his problems.  He continues by stating that he was involved in a custody case with his estranged wife and his commander was tired of the numerous telephone calls from his wife.  He states that he was told by his commander and his first sergeant that he should not fight for custody of his children because there was no place in the Army for a single noncommissioned officer with two children.  He states that he went on leave for a period of 2 weeks and when he returned to duty he met with his commander, who told him that he was being chaptered out of the Army.  When he inquired as to the reason why, he was told that since nothing could be done about his wife’s continuous telephone calls, something would be done about him.  He goes on to state that he was escorted to the office of the Judge Advocate General (JAG) to confer with an attorney and that the attorney told him that since he had over 6 years of service he had a right to have his case considered by a board of officers.  He states that when his commander discovered that he had requested to have his case considered before a board of officers, his commander threatened to notify his wife’s attorney that he was being separated as a result of a personality disorder and that he would never get custody of his children.  He states that he was forced to change his request and to accept a discharge for a personality disorder that he never had.  He concludes by stating that he was unjustly and unlawfully separated from the Army, and although he was allowed to enlist in the Army 2 years later, he is now behind his peer group.  He states that he would like his records to be “set straight” so that he can continue to serve proudly in the United States Army.  In support of his appeal, he submits a letter from his wife dated 7 December 2001 and copies of documents maintained in his Official Military Personnel File.

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

On 25 March 1986, he enlisted in the Army in Louisville, Kentucky, for 4 years, in the pay grade of E-1.  He successfully completed his training as a traffic management coordinator.  He remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments and was advanced to the pay grade of E-5 on 2 March 1990.  

On 31 March 1998, the applicant was counseled by his commander regarding the commands intent to initiate action to eliminate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-13, based upon the presence of a personality disorder.  In the General Counseling Form, the commander indicated that the applicant’s family problems lead to his being repeatedly absent and late for duty; and that on 4 March 1998 he was advised of the possibility of having elimination action initiated against him.  In the commander’s request for a psychiatric evaluation, the commander cited past suicide threats, absenteeism, lateness and an inability to adjust to his marital situation as a basis for his request for the psychiatric evaluation.  The commander informed the applicant that he was scheduled for an evaluation on 30 April 1998.

On 30 April 1998, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation to determine his fitness to remain on active duty.  The attending psychiatrist diagnosed him as having a personality disorder with a deeply ingrained, maladaptive pattern of behavior, which grossly interfered with his ability to function effectively in the military.  The psychiatrist indicated that the applicant’s condition was unlikely to be amenable to further efforts at rehabilitation; therefore, separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, may be considered.

On 12 May 1998, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-13.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification, and after consulting with counsel, he requested to have his case considered by an administrative board.  He also requested a personal appearance before an administrative separation board and to be represented by counsel.

On 10 June 1998, the applicant changed his request and indicated that he did not desire to have his case considered by or to appear before an administrative separation board.  He also waived his right to be represented by counsel.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 16 June 1998.  Accordingly, on 28 July 1998, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-13 based on the presence of a personality disorder.  He had completed 12 years, 4 months and 4 days of total active service and he was assigned a reentry (RE) code of RE-3.

On 4 July 2000, the commander of the United States Army Recruiting Company in Lexington, Kentucky forwarded a memorandum to the commander of the United States Army Recruiting Battalion recommending that the applicant be allowed to enlist in the Army.

On 14 September 2000, the applicant was granted a waiver of his RE code and on 20 September 2000, he enlisted in the Army for 3 years in the pay grade of 
E-5.

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.

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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions.  However, he was properly diagnosed by a psychiatrist as having a personality disorder with a deeply ingrained, maladaptive pattern of behavior, which grossly interfered with his ability to function effectively in the military.  Accordingly, his records, suicide threats, absenteeism, lateness and an inability to adjust to his marital situation were the basis for his former commander’s recommendation for discharge.  Although it appears that he may have been able to overcome the behavior which led to his being recommended for discharge as a result of a personality disorder, his DD Form 214 and military records appropriately reflect the narrative reason and authority for his discharge.

4.  If the applicant believed that his recommendation for discharge was in error and unjust, he could have had his case considered before an administrative separation board.  Instead he opted to waive his rights and to be discharged based on a personality disorder.  Although he may now believe that he made the wrong choice, it is not a basis for granting the applicant’s request.

5.  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.

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

__wtm___  ___inw__  ___cg___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002071888	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/10/03	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1998/07/28	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Chapter 5-13	
DISCHARGE REASON	557	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  557	144.4200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.