IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 February 2021 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20200001394 APPLICANT REQUESTS: a physical disability separation due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in lieu of discharge due to personality disorder APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) FACTS: 1. Title 10, United States 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 also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. The applicant states she should have been medically separated due to PTSD she experienced due to being raped and beaten by her drill sergeants. She believes she was discharged as having a personality disorder in order to protect the rapist from being arrested. She suffers from a debilitating illness and has a 100-percent service connected disability rating. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 9 January 1985. 4. The applicant was counseled on multiple occasions pertaining to her inappropriate behavior. 5. On 30 December 1984, the applicant was reprimanded for her disorderly conduct in the barracks on 23 November 1985. 6. A Psychiatric Evaluation, dated 1 October 1986, shows the applicant was evaluated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center from 29 August 1986 to 9 September 1986. She was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with disturbance of conduct and alcohol abuse, continuous, and historic personality disorder. The following findings were made: a. The applicant's condition represented a character and behavior disorder. It was manifested by a longstanding, stable pattern of maladaptive and inflexible personality traits. There was no condition which warranted administrative disposition through medical channels. The personality disorder was felt to be of sufficient severity that it significantly impaired the applicant's ability to adapt and function effectively in the military environment. The applicant was unlikely to respond to or cooperate with any statement or counseling. The applicant had been and most likely would continue to be unable to adapt to the stress of the military environment. b. It was not felt her alcohol abuse represented the applicant's primary problem nor was it felt the alcohol abuse had worsened her maladaptive behavior patterns significantly. c. It was recommended the applicant be separated due to a personality disorder. 7. On 8 April 1987, the applicant was notified by her commander of his intention to initiate action to separate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-13, due to a personality disorder. She was advised of her right to consult with counsel and submit statements in her behalf. The reasons for proposed action were: a. The applicant received formal counseling for unprofessional behavior and unprofessional conduct. b. The applicant received a letter of reprimand for disorderly conduct. c. The applicant forged the name of another Soldier on a check to herself. d. The applicant was arrested and charged with battery. e. It was recommended the applicant be administratively separated because of a personality disorder. f. The applicant's supervisor requested the applicant no longer be permitted to work in the Clinical Laboratory due to the applicant's unprofessional and disruptive behavior. 8. On 8 April 1987, after being advised of the basis of her contemplated separation and its effect and the rights made available to her, the applicant requested treatment in a VA medical center and she requested an extension of her response date in order to seek an independent psychiatric evaluation. 9. On 9 April 1987, the applicant underwent a mental evaluation. It was determined she: * had no significant illness * was mentally responsible * was able to distinguish right from wrong * had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings * met retention standards 10. On 11 May 1987, an authorized official directed the applicant’s discharge in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, and the issuance of an Honorable Discharge Certificate. 11. On 14 May 1987, the applicant was discharged in accordance with the authorized official’s decision. Her DD Form 214 shows she completed 2 years, 4 months, and 6 days of net active service. 12. The applicant's available record is void of documentation and she does not provide evidence showing she was treated for an injury or an illness that warranted her entry into the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES). Additionally, there is no indication she was issued a permanent physical profile or underwent a medical evaluation board (MEB) or a physical evaluation board (PEB). 13. On 8 January 2008, the applicant requested a changed in the reason for her discharge; however, on 30 May 2008,the ABCMR returned the applicant's request without action because a court order appointed a conservator for the applicant because she was unable to manage her financial affairs and provide for her personal needs for physical health, food, clothing, or shelter. She was further informed her request must be submitted through her court ordered conservator. 14. On 27 March 2020, the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command informed the ABCMR that a search of the Army criminal file indexes utilizing the information provided revealed no records pertaining to the applicant. 15. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-13 states a service member may be separated for personality disorder not amounting to disability that interferes with assignment to or performance of duty when so diagnosed by a medical authority. 16. Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, provides the Secretaries of the Military Departments with authority to retire or discharge a member if they find the member unfit to perform military duties because of physical disability. 17. Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army 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. 18. Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) governs medical fitness standards for enlistment; induction; appointment, including officer procurement programs; retention; and separation, including retirement. Once a determination of physical unfitness is made, the physical evaluation board (PEB) rates all disabilities. 19. The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge, which disqualify the Soldier from further military service. The Army disability rating is to compensate the individual for the loss of a military career. The VA does not have authority or responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service. The VA may compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability. 20. Title 38, United States Code, Sections 1110 and 1131, permit the VA to award compensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service. However, an award of a VA rating does not establish an error or injustice on the part of the Army. 21. Title 38, CFR, Part IV is the VA’s schedule for rating disabilities. The VA awards disability ratings to veterans for service-connected conditions, including those conditions detected after discharge. As a result, the VA, operating under different policies, may award a disability rating where the Army did not find the member to be unfit to perform his duties. Unlike the Army, the VA can evaluate a veteran throughout his or her lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based upon that agency's examinations and findings. 22. Based on the applicant’s condition the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) medical staff provided a medical review for the Board members. See ?MEDICAL REVIEW? section. MEDICAL REVIEW: 1. The applicant is applying to the ABCMR to request a physical disability separation due to PTSD in lieu of discharge due to personality disorder. 2. The applicant states she should have been medically separated due to PTSD she experienced due to being raped and beaten by her drill sergeants. She believes she was discharged as having a personality disorder in order to protect the rapist from being arrested. She suffers from a debilitating illness and has a 100-percent service connected disability rating. 3. The ARBA Behavioral Health (BH) Advisor was asked to review this case. Documentation reviewed includes: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * VA electronic medical record, Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) 4. The ABCMR Record of Proceedings details the applicant’s military service and the circumstances of the case. The ROP indicates that the applicant entered military service on 9 JAN 1985 and was discharged on 14 MAY 1987 discharge in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, and the issuance of an Honorable Discharge Certificate. 5. The applicant was counseled on multiple occasions pertaining to her inappropriate behavior. On 30 December 1984, the applicant was reprimanded for her disorderly conduct in the barracks on 23 November 1985. 6. A Psychiatric Evaluation, dated 1 October 1986, shows the applicant was evaluated at Walter Reed Army Medical Center from 29 August 1986 to 9 September 1986. She was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with disturbance of conduct and alcohol abuse, continuous, and historic personality disorder. 7. The Psychiatric Evaluation found the applicant's condition represented a character and behavior disorder. It was manifested by a longstanding, stable pattern of maladaptive and inflexible personality traits. There was no condition which warranted administrative disposition through medical channels. The personality disorder was felt to be of sufficient severity that it significantly impaired the applicant's ability to adapt and function effectively in the military environment. The applicant was unlikely to respond t or cooperate with any statement or counseling. The applicant had been and most likely would continue to be unable to adapt to the stress of the military environment. It was recommended the applicant be separated due to a personality disorder. 8. On 9 April 1987, the applicant underwent a mental evaluation. It was determined she: had no significant illness, was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong, had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings met retention standards. 9. The applicant's available record is void of documentation and she does not provide evidence showing she was treated for an injury or an illness that warranted her entry into the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES). Additionally, there is no indication she was issued a permanent physical profile or underwent a medical evaluation board (MEB) or a physical evaluation board (PEB). 10. With regards to military medical disability/retirement, the Army has a process that begins with entry into the disability evaluation system (DES). Referral to this system requires a designation of unfitness before an individual can be separated from the military because of an injury or medical condition. In the applicant’s case, there is no indication that she had an unfitting medical, neurological or behavioral health condition while on active duty as evidenced by the lack of : 1) a permanent physical profile for physical or psychological impairment; 2) a diagnosis of a medical, neurological or behavioral health condition that failed medical retention standards (other than Personality Disorder); 3) a diagnosis of a disabling medical, neurological or behavioral health condition that rendered the applicant unable to perform the duties required of her MOS or military grade; 4) a medical examination that warranted her entry into the disability evaluation system. 11. It is important to realize that a diagnosis of a physical or mental condition post- service (the applicant has since received a service rating of 100% for PTSD) and the subsequent award of a VA rating does not establish entitlement to medical retirement or separation from the Army. Operating under its own policies and regulations, the VA, which has neither the authority nor the responsibility for determining medical unfitness for military duty, awards ratings because a medical condition is related to service and affects the individual’s civilian employability. The VA evaluates a member throughout his lifetime, adjusting the percentage of disability based on that agency’s examinations and findings. 12. In the applicant’s case, there is no evidence of the applicant receiving a permanent physical profile, or a BH diagnosis while on active duty for PTSD or any other psychological issues. JLV indicates several BH diagnoses, but there is no indication that any existed while in military service, other than Personality Disorder as noted in her military records. 13. In conclusion, after considering all the available medical documentation, it is the opinion of this psychologist that there is insufficient evidence to warrant a physical disability separation due to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in lieu of discharge due to personality disorder. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found relief is not warranted. 2. The Board concurred with the conclusion of the ARBA BH Advisor that during her period of active duty the applicant did not have any conditions that warranted referring her for disability evaluation and a potential separation based on disability. The found her post-service diagnosis of PTSD is not a basis for retroactively referring her for disability evaluation. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined her discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, was not in error or unjust. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :XX :XX :XX DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, United States 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 also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-13 states a service member may be separated for personality disorder not amounting to disability that interferes with assignment to or performance of duty when so diagnosed by a medical authority. A Soldier being separated under this section will be awarded a character of service of honorable, under honorable conditions, or an entry-level separation. 3. Title 10, U.S. Code, chapter 61, provides the Secretaries of the Military Departments with authority to retire or discharge a member if they find the member unfit to perform military duties because of physical disability. The U.S. Army Physical Disability Agency is responsible for administering the Army physical disability evaluation system and executes Secretary of the Army decision-making authority as directed by Congress in chapter 61 and in accordance with DOD Directive 1332.18 and Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation). a. Soldiers are referred to the disability system when they no longer meet medical retention standards in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), chapter 3, as evidenced in an MEB; when they receive a permanent medical profile rating of 3 or 4 in any factor and are referred by an MOS Medical Retention Board; and/or they are command-referred for a fitness-for-duty medical examination. b. The disability evaluation assessment process involves two distinct stages: the MEB and PEB. The purpose of the MEB is to determine whether the service member's injury or illness is severe enough to compromise his/her ability to return to full duty based on the job specialty designation of the branch of service. A PEB is an administrative body possessing the authority to determine whether or not a service member is fit for duty. A designation of "unfit for duty" is required before an individual can be separated from the military because of an injury or medical condition. Service members who are determined to be unfit for duty due to disability either are separated from the military or are permanently retired, depending on the severity of the disability and length of military service. Individuals who are "separated" receive a one-time severance payment, while veterans who retire based upon disability receive monthly military retired pay and have access to all other benefits afforded to military retirees. c. The mere presence of a medical impairment does not in and of itself justify a finding of unfitness. In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier may reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. Reasonable performance of the preponderance of duties will invariably result in a finding of fitness for continued duty. A Soldier is physically unfit when a medical impairment prevents reasonable performance of the duties required of the Soldier's office, grade, rank, or rating. 4. Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army 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. Only the unfitting conditions or defects and those which contribute to unfitness will be considered in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity warranting retirement or separation for disability. a. Paragraph 3-2 states 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 who can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in military service. b. Paragraph 3-4 states Soldiers who sustain or aggravate physically-unfitting disabilities must meet the following line-of-duty criteria to be eligible to receive retirement and severance pay benefits: (1) The disability must have been incurred or aggravated while the Soldier was entitled to basic pay or as the proximate cause of performing active duty or inactive duty training. (2) The disability must not have resulted from the Soldier's intentional misconduct or willful neglect and must not have been incurred during a period of unauthorized absence. 5. Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) governs medical fitness standards for enlistment; induction; appointment, including officer procurement programs; retention; and separation, including retirement. Once a determination of physical unfitness is made, the PEB rates all disabilities. The VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities is used by the Army and the VA as part of the process of adjudicating disability claims. It is a guide for evaluating the severity of disabilities resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of, or incident to, military service. This degree of severity is expressed as a percentage rating which determines the amount of monthly compensation. 6. Title 38 United States Code 1110 (General - Basic Entitlement), For disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, in the active military, naval, or air service, during a period of war, the United States will pay to any veteran thus disabled and who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable from the period of service in which said injury or disease was incurred, or preexisting injury or disease was aggravated, compensation as provided in this subchapter, but no compensation shall be paid if the disability is a result of the veteran's own willful misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs. 7. Title 38 United States Code 1131 (Peacetime Disability Compensation - Basic Entitlement), For disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, in the active military, naval, or air service, during other than a period of war, the United States will pay to any veteran thus disabled and who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable from the period of service in which said injury or disease was incurred, or preexisting injury or disease was aggravated, compensation as provided in this subchapter, but no compensation shall be paid if the disability is a result of the veteran's own willful misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20200001394 7 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1