MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  10 June 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003088264

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		Member	
	Ms. Shirley Powell		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 the narrative reason for his separation be changed and he be compensated for his lost career.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was discharged abruptly for allegedly having a Personality Disorder.  He states that, in a nutshell, a chief warrant officer named Chief M___ fabricated false and fraudulent stories and documents, specifically, maintenance documents and untrue written and verbal statements to the Army psychologist.  Chief M___ told him he would get away with getting the applicant out.  Doctor P___ swore her main source of information was Chief M___.  The applicant believes Chief M___ was racist and openly discriminated against the applicant.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 June 1991.  He was promoted to Sergeant, E-5 on 1 January 1997.  He was assigned to the 403d Transportation Company, Fort Bragg, NC on 8 September 1997 where he apparently performed duties as a power generator equipment repairer in the maintenance shop.

Apparently, the applicant's problems started around September 1997 when he returned from Korea and his wife shortly thereafter left him for another man.  Apparently, on an unknown date the applicant was offered nonjudicial punishment for insubordination to Master Sergeant (MSG) Q___.  The applicant elected to be tried by court-martial.  He was sent to the Staff Judge Advocate for counseling, who recommended he be sent for a mental evaluation.  Apparently, the applicant also communicated a threat to MSG Q___.  This information was mentioned by the applicant's first sergeant during testimony at the applicant's administrative separation board.

On or about 11 February 1998, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and was diagnosed with a Personality Disorder.  It was recommended he be administratively separated.

On 20 April 1998, the applicant's commander initiated action to separate the applicant for Personality Disorder.  

On 22 April 1998, the applicant underwent a psychological evaluation from a civilian doctor.  The applicant informed the evaluator of his family history, denied that he was homicidal or suicidal, and stated that he had become upset in the past but he used to discuss his problems with his wife until he was deployed and another soldier interfered in their marriage.  The evaluator noted that, given the applicant's self-reported history of spousal infidelity and feelings of helplessness from the military hospital staff indicating he was mentally unstable, several diagnostic variables were suggested.  The test findings and the applicant's     self-report provided examples of social withdrawal and a need for love.  He could also be feeling mild anxiety and psychological numbing due to personalizing his feelings of abandonment from his spouse and betrayal.  Test results revealed that he appeared to be experiencing emotional discomfort, primarily related to the recent diagnosis of having a personality disorder.  The civilian doctor noted that her test results supported diagnostic symptoms that appeared congruent with Adjustment Disorder, situationally imposed due to the upcoming "litigation" and the abandonment of his wife.  The Axis II (Personality Disorders) diagnosis was not apparent.  The civilian doctor offered an Axis I (Clinical Disorders) of Adjustment Disorder with mixed Emotional Features; deferred an Axis II diagnosis; and deferred an Axis III (General Medical Condition) diagnosis.

On 28 April 1998, the applicant was advised by consulting counsel for the basis for the contemplated separation action.  He requested consideration of his case by an administrative separation board.  

On 1 July 1998, an administrative separation board convened.  Major P___, of Womack Army Medical Center Inpatient Psychiatry, testified that she had evaluated the applicant indirectly.  The applicant was evaluated by Sergeant P___, the psychiatric specialist.  Sergeant P___ had been trained in advanced individual training and by 6 years of direct or supervised training plus one hour per week training at the clinic.  Sergeant P___ had seen the applicant on 3 or     4 occasions.  The applicant received extensive neuropsychological testing consisting of about 10 tests.  Sergeant P___ and Captain L___, a clinical psychologist with a degree in psychology and a PhD in psychiatry, conducted the tests.  Captain L___'s conclusion was the applicant had an Adjustment Disorder and a partial Personality Disorder.  Major P___ reviewed all the testing in the applicant's case.  She stated a personality behavior is how one endures stressors in life and that her conclusion was the applicant had a Personality Disorder with Paranoid and Antisocial traits.  He had a lack of insight and an inflexibility of character.  She stated that a person with this disorder may have problems coping with new situations.  They have severe problems under stress.  A person could do well when he or she first comes into the Army but as they were promoted and responsibilities increased they would start to decompensate. Major P___ stated that the applicant's second divorce and coming back from Korea were traumatic events for him.  Since his wife did not want to be with him, he lost one of his social supports.  

Major P___ testified she relied on some information from the applicant's chain of command, specifically Chief M___.  Chief M___ told her that the applicant was very paranoid and that everyone around him noticed his behavior was exaggerated.  Major P___ stated that even if the applicant was moved to a nonstressful environment, he would appear to do better only until another stressor, such as deployment, came along.

Major P___ was provided a psychiatric evaluation made by a civilian doctor who evaluated the applicant.  Major P___ noted that the civilian doctor claimed the applicant had no Personality Disorder.  She noted the civilian doctor conducted some of the tests the military did; however, Womack went into more depth and did more neurological testing to ensure there were no psychological disorders.  The civilian doctor found the applicant had an Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Emotional features, which Major P___ stated was consistent with Womack's diagnosis.  She noted that the civilian doctor made a deferred diagnosis, which means the doctor did not have enough information on which to come to a conclusion of whether or not the applicant had a Personality Disorder.  Major P___ stated that she was surprised that the applicant, at 33 years old, had a Personality Disorder.  That was why they had to make sure [with extensive testing].  However, people with a Personality Disorder can do well for many years until a major stressor comes along.  

Major P___ stated that it did not bother her that she never talked personally with the applicant.  Her providers were very good and very experienced and she trusted their judgment.  She did not just review charts; she talked extensively with the providers.  She did not put her name on the recommendation solely because she trusted the providers.  Her recommendation was based on the overall facts regarding the applicant.  She noted that a psychologist can make a recommendation for a chapter in other places, so Captain L___ was capable of coming to that conclusion himself.  However, in their clinic it is policy that only the psychiatrist can make and sign the recommendation.  

MSG Q___ testified at the applicant's administrative separation board.  He stated that (on an unspecified date), they were in the field when he received a phone call from the applicant's first sergeant and commander requesting to set up a time when the applicant and his wife could be escorted to their quarters and divide their property.  He and Chief M___ went with the applicant to his quarters. The applicant's wife and Staff Sergeant (SSG) P___ (the "other man") were already there.  SSG P___ said he was in the wife's chain of command.  The applicant's wife took pretty much everything.  MSG Q___ said he did not know SSG P___ prior to that day.  There was a question about whether or not the applicant had signed for the quarters.  The applicant was sent to housing, where he was almost thrown out of the office for being disrespectful to one of the workers.  The applicant was told to stay away from his wife.  Somehow, the applicant obtained a key to the quarters and went there.  MSG Q___ and Chief M___ were pulled out of a function with the chain of command by the military police, who had the applicant in custody for taking some of his wife's belongings. The applicant was counseled and he reacted in a hostile way.  MSG Q___ detailed problems he had with the applicant in performing his military duties.

MSG Q___ stated that the applicant informed him he believed SSG P___ was with his wife.  It was explained that a perception was not enough.  The applicant said he had pictures of them but that he was not following his wife.  The applicant requested an investigation be done.  It was explained to the applicant that her chain of command had to do the investigation but they (her chain of command) stated there were not enough evidence to conduct one.  

The applicant did not testify at his board.

In section V (Recommendations) of the DA Form 1574 (Report of Proceedings by Investigating Officer/Board of Officers), the board recommended the applicant be discharged due to a deeply ingrained maladaptive pattern of behavior of a long duration that interfered with his ability to perform duty.  

On 24 July 1998, the Corps Administrative Law Attorney reviewed the separation packet and found the proceedings to be legally insufficient because the board did not make a specific finding which warranted separation.  It was noted that, in this case, the board failed to make a finding with regard to whether or not the allegation that the applicant suffered from a deeply ingrained maladaptive pattern of behavior was supported by the preponderance of the evidence.  

Apparently, section IV (Findings) of the DA Form 1574 was amended after the legal review by adding that the board found a preponderance of the evidence showed the applicant had a Personality Disorder that was a deeply ingrained maladaptive pattern of behavior of a long duration that interfered with his ability to perform duty.  The board members initialed this entry.

On 29 July 1998, military defense counsel for the applicant requested the separation action be disapproved.  Counsel stated that evidence was presented at the applicant's administrative separation board by two psychiatrists, one of whom was of the opinion that the applicant had a Personality Disorder and one whom stated the applicant did not.  Counsel stated that the problem in the applicant's case was not a Personality Disorder but rather a personality conflict with MSG Q___, his immediate supervisor.  The applicant received little support from his unit after he discovered his wife was cheating on him.  After the applicant was removed from MSG Q___'s supervision, things began to turn around for him.  He was getting a divorce and he had a more positive attitude.  

On 3 August 1998, the Corps Administrative Law Attorney reviewed the separation packet and found the proceedings to be legally sufficient.

In September 1998, the applicant underwent another mental status evaluation by a different civilian doctor.  The applicant gave the doctor a history of his current situation.  This doctor noted that, "On the basis of testimony by a psychiatrist with only four years experience, who had never bothered once to interview the patient, and whose testimony to the board, which I have attempted to read, is so confused and irrational, and reveals such faulty logic as to be, in my professional opinion, meaningless psychobabble which ended with the conclusion that, on the basis of records which she refused to turn over to the board or defense, that (the applicant) had demonstrated such a longstanding pattern of mal-adaptive behavior as to warrant a diagnosis of "Personality Disorder," and that his seven years of faithful and outstanding service to our country should be terminated."  This civilian doctor offered an Axis I diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder of adult life; an Axis II diagnosis of no Personality Disorder; and an Axis III diagnosis of no significant medical history or condition.

By memorandum dated 7 October 1998, Major H___, Clinical Neuropsychologist and Chief, Psychology Service, Womack Army Medical Center, noted that she had reviewed the applicant's administrative separation board records with a focus upon the supporting documentation for the diagnosis of a Personality Disorder.  Major H___ stated that her assessment was based solely upon her record review and did not include clinical interviews with the applicant or other individuals.  Major H___ noted that it concerned her that the military psychiatrist relied upon
others' assessments, with particular weight given to that of a mental health technician, in making the diagnosis of Personality Disorder.  She also noted that the supporting documentation from the credentialed providers was inconclusive and there was little collateral information outside that of several individuals within the applicant's command.

Major H___ noted that the applicant was dealing with a constellation of interrelated stresses during the time frame under consideration.  He appeared to
have relied upon rather inflexible coping techniques and there was evidence of marginal insight for a naïve individual with poor impulse control and heightened needs for affection.  While it could be argued that those elements were consistent with a Personality Disorder, the duration and pervasiveness of those behaviors were not well documented.  The applicant successfully served seven years in the Army, to include completing two overseas tours, and he had been recommended to attend Officer Candidate School in the recent past.  
Major H___ stated that she recognized that the applicant's attitudes and behaviors could indeed signal the presence of an underlying Personality Disorder but the relative paucity of documentation suggested that a decision be made in his favor.  She recommended the applicant be retained on active duty and rehabilitatively transferred to another unit.

A 3 December 1998 memorandum for record (MFR) signed by the 7th Transportation Battalion legal NCO indicated that, on 3 December 1998, the applicant requested and was granted an open door session with the group commander after receiving his copy of the approved separation packet.  Several members of the applicant's chain of command were present, including Chief Warrant Officer M___, Chief of the Maintenance Section.  Prior to the applicant being admitted, the commander asked the chain of command their opinion of the applicant.  It was noted that the entire chain of command indicated they did not feel comfortable with the applicant's ability to soldier and to lead soldiers due to his mental state.

The 3 December 1998 MFR went on to state that the applicant was brought in.  He stated that he wanted to tell the commander in person that he felt if he had an opportunity to be transferred into another unit, he would prove he could lead soldiers and continue to perform adequately.  He also stated that there were some unethical things done to him by his chain of command; however, he did not elaborate on this.  The commander acknowledged the applicant's opinion but stated that if there was any new evidence, the applicant should bring it out in the open.  The applicant replied that he hired an attorney for that matter.  

The 3 December 1998 MFR concluded by stating that, prior to dismissing the applicant, the commander informed him that the charges against him were never dismissed, only put on hold by the battalion commander.  The group commander's course of action would be either to continue on with the separation process due to the applicant's Personality Disorder or prefer court-martial charges if the conclusion was the applicant did not have a Personality Disorder.

On 8 December 1998, the Command Sergeant Major of the 7th Transportation Battalion made a sworn statement regarding the applicant's behavior at a meeting between the two of them on 7 December 1998 with another noncommissioned officer present.  The Command Sergeant Major described the applicant's behavior and stated the applicant became belligerent in word and demeanor, displayed blatant disrespect in the presence of fellow noncommissioned officers and enlisted soldiers.  He stated the applicant's unprofessional conduct demonstrated a pattern of insubordination, loss of deportment, disrespect, and loss of military bearing.

On 16 December 1998, civilian counsel for the applicant requested the separation approval authority delay the applicant's discharge and review his entire discharge packet.  Counsel noted that he had provided supporting documentation to the Corps Support Group commander which indicated the applicant did not have a Personality Disorder.  It was counsel's understanding that Major H___ (Chief, Psychology Service, Womack Army Medical Center) reviewed the documentation and recommended the applicant be retained on active duty with a rehabilitative transfer to another unit.  The applicant's actions were consistent with a distraught husband, not with someone suffering from a Personality Disorder.  

The appropriate commander approved the recommendation of the administrative separation board and directed the applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge.

On 23 December 1998, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, Personality Disorder.  He had completed 7 years, 5 months, and 26 days of creditable active service.

On 1 April 1999, the applicant underwent another mental status evaluation from a civilian doctor.  This doctor stated that he reviewed an extensive packet of material that included the applicant's military records, military evaluations, and affidavits from persons who had known the applicant over the years and other pertinent documents.  He saw the applicant for 2 hours of clinical interview and mental status examination.  Additionally, the applicant completed a structured interview, and two standardized psychological tests.  He noted that the psychological evaluation done by the military did not lead to the diagnosis (by the psychologist) of a Personality Disorder and that Major P___ mistakenly and erroneously testified that the psychologist's evaluation led to the diagnosis of Personality Disorder.  It was this doctor's opinion that the applicant was not suffering from any mental disorder, most particularly a Personality Disorder. 

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5, paragraph 5-13, sets the policy and prescribes procedures for separating members with a Personality Disorder (not amounting to a disability) that interferes with assignment to or performance of duty when so diagnosed by a physician trained in psychiatry and psychiatric diagnosis.   

Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 5-17, sets the policy and prescribes procedures for separating members on the basis of other physical of mental conditions not amounting to disability and excluding conditions appropriate for separation processing under paragraphs 5-11 or 5-13 that potentially interfere with assignment to or performance of duty.  Such conditions include disorders manifesting disturbances of perception, thinking, emotional control or behavior sufficiently severe that the soldier's ability to effectively perform military duties is significantly impaired.  

Army Regulation 40-501 governs medical fitness standards for enlistment, retention, and separation.  Paragraph 3-35 states that certain disorders, including Personality 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.  Paragraph 3-36 states that Adjustment Disorders (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.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), 4th edition states that 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 functioning, 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.  Although, by definition, a Personality Disorder requires an onset no later than early adulthood, individuals may not come to clinical attention until relatively late in life.  A Personality Disorder may be exacerbated following the loss of significant supporting persons (e.g., a spouse) or previously stabilizing social situations (e.g., a job).  

The DSM-IV states that the essential feature of an Adjustment Disorder is the development of clinically significant emotional or behavioral symptoms in response to an identifiable psychosocial stressor or stressors.  The stressor may be a single event (e.g., termination of a romantic relationship), or there may be multiple stressors (e.g., marked business difficulties and marital problems).  It states that because Personality Disorders are frequently exacerbated by stress, the additional diagnosis of Adjustment disorder is usually not made.  

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 Board notes that the applicant received several mental status evaluations, one from military doctors and several from civilian doctors, that revealed different diagnoses.  

3.  The 11 February 1998 mental status evaluation by military medical personnel at Womack Army Medical Center diagnosed him with having a Personality Disorder.  The 22 April 1998 psychological evaluation from a civilian doctor diagnosed him with symptoms that appeared congruent with Adjustment Disorder.  This doctor noted that a Personality Disorder diagnosis was not apparent; however, contrary to the contention by applicant's military defense counsel on 29 July 1998, that was a deferred diagnosis, not a diagnosis of no Personality Disorder.

4.  In September 1998, the applicant underwent another mental status evaluation by a different civilian doctor.  That evaluation diagnosed him with an Adjustment Disorder of adult life and a diagnosis of no Personality Disorder.  
5.  On 1 April 1999, the applicant underwent another mental status evaluation from a civilian doctor which concluded with a diagnosis that the applicant was not suffering from any mental disorder, most particularly a Personality Disorder.  This doctor stated that the psychological evaluation done by the military did not lead to the diagnosis (by the psychologist) of a Personality Disorder and that Major P___ mistakenly and erroneously testified that the psychologist's evaluation led to the diagnosis of Personality Disorder.  However, he does not provide any evidence to show her testimony (which was that Captain L___'s conclusion was the applicant had an Adjustment Disorder and a partial Personality Disorder) was incorrect.

6.  The Board also notes that Major H___, the Clinical Neuropsychologist and Chief, Psychology Service, Womack Army Medical Center, noted that the military's diagnosis of Personality Disorder was based on inconclusive supporting documentation from credentialed providers with little collateral information outside that of several individuals within the applicant's command.  However, the Board also notes that Major H___ stated that it could be argued that the applicant's behavior was consistent with a Personality Disorder although the duration and pervasiveness of those behaviors were not well documented.  The Board notes that Major H___ stated that she recognized that the applicant's attitudes and behaviors could indeed signal the presence of an underlying Personality Disorder.

7.  The Board notes that, although a Personality Disorder by definition requires an onset no later than early adulthood, the DSM-IV acknowledges that individuals may not come to clinical attention until relatively late in life.  The Board also notes that the DSM-IV appears to support Major P___'s testimony that an Adjustment Disorder was consistent with Womack's diagnosis of Personality Disorder.  The DSM-IV states that a Personality Disorder may be exacerbated following the loss of significant supporting persons (e.g., a spouse) and that Personality Disorders are frequently exacerbated by stress (so that the additional diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder is usually not made).  

8.  Despite the contradictory diagnoses, the Board notes that three of the four evaluations determined the applicant had a disorder (either Personality Disorder or Adjustment Disorder) that could have led to his administrative separation.

9.  The Board concludes that the applicant was evaluated by competent military medical personnel and a considered diagnosis was made by competent military medical authority trained in psychiatry that he had a Personality Disorder.  

10.  The Board notes that the applicant did not testify at his administrative separation board where he could have brought up his contentions that the separation action was the result of racist behavior on the part of Chief M___.  He had another opportunity to bring up these contentions at the 3 December 1998 open door session with the group commander.  He stated at that meeting that "there were some unethical things done to him by his chain of command;" however, he did not elaborate at the time and replied instead that he hired an attorney for that matter.  However, he does not now provide evidence to support those contentions.  

11.  It is purely speculative to presume that the applicant "lost" his military career solely because of the diagnosis of Personality Disorder.  The Board notes that the applicant was involved in some type of behavior (alluded to at his administrative separation board as insubordination and/or communicating a threat) that resulted in court-martial charges around late 1997 or early 1998.  The Board notes that he displayed insubordinate behavior during a meeting with his battalion command sergeant major in December 1998.  The Board presumes that had the applicant not been diagnosed with a Personality Disorder (or Adjustment Disorder, for which he could also have been administratively separated), his command would have followed through on the court-martial charges with the possibility his military career would have ended through judicial action.

12.  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

___sc___  ___jm___  __sp____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003084688	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030610	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19981228	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 5-13	
DISCHARGE REASON	A40.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.