RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           10 February 2004                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003091731

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. G. E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		Member	
	Ms. Linda M. Barker		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:  

1.  The applicant requests that the reason for her discharge be changed from personality disorder to post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and that her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed. 

2.  The applicant states that she received a Department of Veterans Affairs disability rating for PTSD of 10 percent in 1999, which was increased to 30 percent in December 2002.  In effect, she contends that this shows that she was suffering from PTSD not a personality disorder.

3.  The applicant provides copies of three pages from her service medical records. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which occurred on 7 December 1984.  The application was originally submitted on 19 December 2002.  The case was administratively closed due to a lack of availability of any medical records.  The case was reopened based on her 11 June 2003 submission of the medical records.  

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant entered active duty on 4 January 1983 and served under her maiden name during her entire period of service.

4.  On 7 December 1984, she received an honorable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, paragraph 5-13, personality disorder.

5.  An 8 August 1983 Standard Form 600 (SF 600) (Chronological Record of Medical Care) shows treatment for numbness following a fall on 17 January 1984.  

6.  A 5 December 1983 SF 600 shows a complaint of depression, moods and nervous habits.  The report shows a history of her having always been a nervous person.  The diagnostic impression was listed as dysthymic disorder.  She was scheduled for counseling sessions.  

7.  The 17 January 1984 follow-up session states that she had some suicidal ideation and “decided to keep her child”.  The case was terminated at that time as the applicant lacked a desire for treatment.  The diagnosis was dysthymic personality and her mental status was described as “WNL” (within normal limits).

8.  On 3 February 1984 her base exchange check cashing privileges were revoked for failing to have sufficient funds to cover her checks for a third time.

9.  On 24 May 1984 the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand for losing her barracks key twice in less than five months. 

10.  On 21 June 1984 she was stopped by the military police for passing in a no passing zone.  She was arrested when a routine check found she had outstanding traffic warrants for driving with expired license plates, having no insurance and failure to appear.

11.  On 30 July 1984 the applicant received a psychiatric evaluation at the Community Mental Health, Fort Hood, Texas.  The report, dated 1 November 1984, shows that she was diagnosed as having an atypical dissociative disorder and histrionic personality disorder.  She was found to be able to tell right from wrong and had the mental capacity to participate in any board proceedings.  The history section shows a self admitted long history of depression and suicide attempts and a continuing history of alcoholism.  

12.  On 20 November 1984 her unit commander initiated administrative separation actions under AR 635-200, paragraph 5-13 for personality disorder.

13.  The applicant consulted with military counsel, acknowledged her rights and submitted a statement on her own behalf.

14.  On 21 November 1984 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for altering a sick slip.

15.  The discharge authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 28 November 1984. 

16.  The applicant was discharged with an honorable characterization of service under AR 635-200, paragraph 5-13, personality disorder.  She had 1 year, 11 months, and 4 days of service.

17.  Title 38, United States Code, sections 310 and 331, permits the Veterans Affairs to award compensation for a medical condition which was incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  The VA, however, is not required by law to determine medical unfitness for further military service.  The VA, in accordance with its own policies and regulations, awards compensation solely on the basis that a medical condition exists and that said medical condition reduces or impairs the social or industrial adaptability of the individual concerned.  Consequently, due to the two concepts involved, an individual's medical condition, although not considered medically unfitting for military service at the time of processing for separation, discharge or retirement, may be sufficient to qualify the individual for VA benefits based on an evaluation by that agency.

18.  AR 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.  The diagnosis must have been established by a psychiatrist or doctoral-level clinical psychologist with the necessary and appropriate professional credentials to conduct mental health evaluations for the Department of Defense components.  Prior counseling with a view to correcting deficiencies is mandatory.  A diagnosis by a psychiatrist is required.  Separation under this paragraph may not be used in lieu of disciplinary action solely to spare a soldier who has committed serious acts of misconduct.  An honorable discharge is issued unless an entry-level separation is required.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was separated because a duly diagnosed personality disorder rendered her incapable of becoming a satisfactory soldier.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

2.  The applicant has provided no evidence to show that she had PTSD rather than a personality disorder.

3.  The award of a VA compensation rating does not mandate change of, nor demonstrate an error in the diagnosis rendered on active duty.  The VA, operating under its own policies and regulations, may make a determination that a medical condition warrants compensation as long as it can show a causal relationship.  

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 7 December 1984; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 6 December 1987.  However, the applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to file in this case.
BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JNS__  ___RTD__  __LMB __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of the case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is insufficient evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file this application within the 3-year statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for correction of the records of the individual concerned.”

		_         John N. Slone__________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003091731	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20040210	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.