SAMR-RB 31 August 2017 MEMORANDUM FOR Case Management Division, US Army Review Boards Agency, 251 18th Street South, Suite 385, Arlington, VA 22202-3531 SUBJECT: Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings for, AR20160002465 1. Reference the attached Army Board for Correction of Military Records Record of Proceedings, dated 30 May 2017, in which the Board members unanimously recommended denial of the applicant's request. 2. I have reviewed the findings, conclusions, and Board member recommendations. I find there is sufficient evidence to grant relief. Therefore, under the authority of Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, I direct that all Department of the Army Records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing the applicant a DD Form 214 showing he was discharged under the authority of AR 635-200 paragraph 5-17 with the narrative reason for separation as Condition, Not a disability with the appropriate SPD code. 3. Request necessary administrative action be taken to effect the correction of records as indicated no later than 31 December 2017. Further, request that the individual concerned and counsel, if any, as well as any Members of Congress who have shown interest be advised of the correction and that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records be furnished a copy of the correspondence. BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE ARMY: - Encl Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Review Boards) BOARD DATE: 30 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002465 BOARD VOTE: _________ _______ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ____x_____ __x_____ ____x____ DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 30 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002465 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 to warrant amendment of the Board's decision in Docket Numbers AR20110012519, dated 15 December 2011 and AR20120001795, dated 28 August 2012, for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _____________x____________ CHAIRPERSON 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. BOARD DATE: 30 May 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160002465 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect: a. Reconsideration of his earlier requests to change item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 4 December 2007 to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and to delete personality disorder. b. In the alternative, the narrative reason should be revised to secretarial plenary authority. c. To personally appear before the Board. 2. The applicant states, in effect: a. He was wrongfully discharged as a result of what he contends was an incorrect diagnosis of personality disorder. Following his discharge, several different mental health professionals have diagnosed him as having PTSD; he has since been receiving associated treatment. b. He requested his military records under the Freedom of Information Act and, as a result, has obtained new evidence which, he asserts, shows undue command influence. Additionally, he was not given his due process in that he was not afforded counsel at the time of his separation and was denied his right to appear before an administrative separation board. The stated reason for being denied counsel and an administrative separation board was that he and his unit were in an imminent danger/combat zone. c. The psychiatrist who provided the diagnosis of personality disorder wrote in one of his emails that he (the psychiatrist) was "unconcerned with what the test results may conclude" and that he felt it was "his duty" to proceed with the applicant's discharge (implying bias on the part of the psychiatrist). The applicant asserts it was required, at the time, for the psychiatrist to obtain a second opinion, and suggests one was not done. He also contends the diagnosing psychiatrist should not have had an interest as to whether he was discharged. d. He served from 1985 to 2007 and questions why his alleged personality disorder was not discovered during all those years of honest and faithful service. 3. The applicant provides: * two emails dated in or around July 2007 and 6 November 2007, respectively * 1st page of a memorandum, dated 13 August 2007, from the applicant to his commander * statement, dated 6 November 2007, from First Sergeant (1SG) BKB * two letters, dated 5 May 2011 and 27 June 2013, from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center * memorandum, date 3 September 2014, by the Secretary of Defense, Subject: Supplemental Guidance to Military Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records Considering Discharge Upgrade by Veterans Claiming PTSD * seven photographs, presumably of the applicant and others * sixteen certificates * personal email, dated 2 January 2007, with photo * noncommissioned officer evaluation reports (NCOER) for rating periods from 2001 through 2002 * DA Form 1059 (Service School Academic Evaluation Report), for the period 23 June 2006 through 25 June 2006 * letter of commendation, dated 19 June 2000 * identification cards * Orders Number 179-368, dated 28 June 2006 * Orders Number 312-019, dated 8 November 2006 * Army Good Conduct Medal Certificate, for the period 25 May 1997 through 24 May 2000 * North Atlantic Treaty Organization Non Article 5 Medal Certificate, for the period 18 November 2006 to 30 November 2007 * document titled "Leader Code" * Disabled American Veterans Membership Application * VA Certificate of Eligibility, with associated documents * College Dean's List Certificate for Spring 2012 * Background Report, dated 2012 * letter from applicant to the Awards and Decorations Branch of U.S. Army Human Resources Command, undated CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20110012519, dated 15 December 2011, and AR20120001795, dated 28 August 2012. 2. The applicant submitted an initial application on 17 June 2011, which was denied. He requested reconsideration on 2 January 2012 and this request was also denied. With his current request for reconsideration, he provides new evidence in the form of documents related to his separation, a letter from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) behavioral health professional, photographs, and certificates. In view of the circumstances, this application for reconsideration warrants consideration by the Board. 3. Having had prior enlisted service in the New Jersey Army National Guard (NJARNG), he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 7 January 1998. 4. DA Form 1059, for the academic rating period 6 April through 29 June 1998, shows the applicant attended and failed the Aircraft Structural Repairer Course for military occupational specialty (MOS) 68G. Item 16 (Comments) states, in effect, the applicant was dropped due to disciplinary problems that were drug-related. Although this report recommended no further schooling, at some point during 1998, he successfully completed advanced individual training in MOS 88K (Watercraft Operator). 5. On 21 January 2003, while stationed at Fort Eustis, VA, his commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c (Commission of a Serious Offense). a. The basis for this action was the applicant's wrongful use of cocaine (for which, on 20 December 2002, he also accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)). b. On 21 January 2003 the applicant consulted with legal counsel (a military attorney) and requested to personally appear before an administrative separation board. c. Memorandum, dated 4 March 2003, sent by an official from the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, reflected no legal objection to the pending separation action. The memorandum also noted that, in effect, there were military police blotter entries indicating the applicant had refused to take a breathalyzer test after local police suspected him of driving under the influence. Additionally, a local authority had separately charged him for domestic assault. The official recommended adding these alleged offenses to the separation action. d. On 28 April 2003 the applicant waived his right to have his case considered by an administrative separation board on the condition the separation authority grant him a general discharge under honorable conditions (i.e., a conditional waiver). e. On 29 April 2003 the separation authority approved the applicant's request for a conditional waiver and directed his separation with a general discharge under honorable conditions. His discharge from the RA took place on 20 May 2003. 6. His DD Form 214, as amended by a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214), shows he completed 5 years, 4 months, and 14 days of net active creditable service in the RA. The DD Form 214 also reflects: * deployed to Kuwait from 29 November 2001 to 11 June 2002 * separation authority was paragraph 14-12c, AR 635-200 * reentry code was "3" (waiver required) * narrative reason for separation was misconduct 7. The applicant enlisted in the Virginia ARNG (VAARNG) on 11 June 2005. He held MOS 96B (Intelligence Specialist). His records also show he was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 116th Infantry Regiment; promoted, effective 16 November 2006, to sergeant (SGT)/E-5 in MOS 96B; and was deployed to Kosovo from 15 October 2006 to 1 November 2007. Orders issued during his deployment reduced him to specialist (SPC)/E-4, effective 16 February 2007, because of unspecified misconduct. 8. The complete facts and circumstances surrounding his 4 December 2007 discharge are not available for review. However, his official military personnel file (OMPF) contains a DD Form 214 that shows: * he was discharged after being ordered to active duty in support of Operation Enduring Freedom (KFOR) [KFOR (Kosovo Force) was a North Atlantic Treaty Organization-led international peacekeeping force] * the separation authority was paragraph 5-13 (Separation because of personality disorder) of AR 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) * the narrative reason for separation was personality disorder, and his character of service was honorable 9. His OMPF also contains a National Guard Bureau Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) showing the applicant was honorably discharged on 3 March 2008 because of the expiration of his term of service. 10. On 29 April 2009, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed his 4 December 2007 discharge from active duty. Additionally, he personally appeared with counsel before the ADRB on 2 May 2011. On both occasions, the ADRB determined he had been properly and equitably discharged, and denied his petition for a change in the narrative reason for separation. 11. On 15 December 2011 (AR20110012519), the Board considered his request for a change to the narrative reason for separation from personality disorder to PTSD but found insufficient evidence to grant him relief. The Board denied his request. 12. On 28 August 2012 (AR20120001795), the Board reconsidered his request for a change to the narrative reason for separation but again found insufficient evidence to support a different outcome. The Board denied his request. 13. The applicant provides: a. An email, sent in or around July 2007, which includes a message from MAJ BE (the psychiatrist who the applicant asserts gave the personality disorder diagnosis) to an individual named Mr. AJ. This email also contains a partial response from Mr. AJ. (1) MAJ BE essentially stated, with regard to the applicant, his goal was to confirm an antisocial personality disorder [a diagnosis assigned to individuals who habitually violate the rights of others without remorse], and rule out bipolar disorder [associated with episodes of mood swings ranging from depressive lows to manic highs], so that the applicant's separation action could proceed. (2) Mr. AJ responded that test results did not help and were not considered valid. This was because the applicant presented himself in an extremely positive light. Additionally, the applicant "hit 11 of the 15 Lie scale items – thus he is not endorsing common human shortcoming[s] and foibles to which most people admit." b. Memorandum, dated 13 August 2007, subject: Separation of [applicant] under AR 635-200, chapter 5 (Separation for Convenience of the Government). The memorandum shows the applicant's elections with regard to his separation action. He requested to appear personally before an administrative separation board; he submitted statements in his own behalf; and he requested both consulting [military] counsel, and representation by military and civilian attorneys. c. Letter written by 1SG BKB, dated 6 November 2007, which states, in effect, the applicant did not physically speak with a defense Judge Advocate General's (JAG) Corps officer. This was because one was not available. As an alternative, Staff Sergeant B set up a conference call with a JAG officer in Germany. d. Letter, dated 5 May 2011, written by Dr. JA, Staff Psychiatrist for a VA medical center, which affirms the applicant was under his care for treatment of anxiety disorder and ongoing exploration of other possible mental health concerns. (1) In September 2010, Dr. AL, PhD, Clinical Psychologist, screened the applicant and determined he was positive for PTSD. (2) The applicant's diagnosis of PTSD was also given by a psychiatrist and a therapist (Dr. JD) associated with a public health management corporation institute. The doctor from this institute questioned the personality disorder diagnosis, and opined: There is lack of evidence to suggest that [applicant] meets diagnostic criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder. According to the American Psychiatric Association (2000) Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR), to meet criteria for Antisocial Personality Disorder a person must demonstrate a pervasive pattern of disregard for and violation of the rights of others occurring since age 15. Additionally, there must be evidence of conduct disorder with onset prior to age 15. The [institute] is unaware of any evidence [applicant] has had a longstanding history of antisocial behavior, meaning since age 15. e. Letter, dated 27 June 2013, written by Dr. KJ, Staff Psychologist for a VA medical center, wherein the writer notes the earlier diagnosis of PTSD was confirmed by Dr. JA. The applicant was additionally diagnosed with traumatic brain injury (TBI). The writer claims this injury was incurred during the applicant's military service, although no substantiating details are offered. 14. On 16 December 2016, a psychologist with the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) provided an advisory opinion. a. The Case Management Division (CMD) requested a medical advisory opinion to review for medical conditions that may not have been considered during separation processing. Specifically, the following questions were to be addressed: (1) Does the available record reasonably support the existence, while in the military, of PTSD, or other boardable behavioral health (BH) conditions (i.e. requiring referral into the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES))? (2) Did these conditions fail medical retention standards, as outlined in AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness), warranting separation through medical channels? (3) Was a required medical examination performed, pursuant to Title 10 (Armed Forces), section 1177 (Members Diagnosed with or reasonably Asserting PTSD or traumatic brain injury: Medical Examination Required for Administrative Separation) [not in effect in 2007; the law was not enacted until 2009]? (4) As part of this assessment, include any additional information deemed appropriate. b. The applicant's DD Form 214 reflected an honorable discharge, on 4 December 2007, due to personality disorder. He is petitioning for a change in his narrative reason for separation. c. Sources. The ARBA psychologist reviewed the applicant's available Department of Defense electronic medical records (Armed Forces Health Longitudinal Technology Application (AHLTA)); records found using the VA's Joint Legacy Viewer; documents available in his OMPF; and those supplied with his application to the Board. d. Brief Summary. (1) The applicant had prior enlisted service in the NJARNG and the RA. On 11 June 2005, he enlisted in the VAARNG for 3 years, but his enlistment ended with an honorable discharge under the provisions of chapter 5, AR 635-200. (2) A review of available AHLTA records did not show any BH diagnoses. There is an AHLTA note that references, "guidance on illicit drug use" in 2003, and a note on 24 July 2007 indicating he had taken a personality test (the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Version 2 (MMPI-2) [a widely used and well-researched test that assesses personality traits and psychopathology]), although it produced an "invalid profile." An invalid profile is one that cannot be interpreted, though it can yield information about response style. In any event, the psychiatrist later diagnosed personality disorder, even though it is not entirely clear from the record which personality disorder was diagnosed. (3) In one written record, the psychiatrist mentioned antisocial personality disorder, but also indicates the possibility of narcissistic personality disorder [characterized by grandiosity, the seeking of excessive admiration, and a lack of empathy; frequently found to coexist with other psychiatric disorders]. (4) The ARBA psychologist thinks it is clear from the applicant's record he does not have antisocial personality disorder. This type of personality requires the patient to have had a conduct disorder [a repetitive and persistent pattern of behavior in which the basic rights of others are violated, and is seen by such conduct as bullying, destroying other's property, and committing serious violations of rules] as a juvenile, or evidence of this disorder being present. The presence of a conduct disorder would likely have prevented the applicant from attaining a top-secret security clearance, which was required for his primary MOS as an Intelligence Specialist. (5) Nevertheless, the applicant does have a history of unlawful behavior after entering the Army. * he was expelled from school in July 1998 for drug-related problems, as well as disciplinary issues, and was recommended not to receive further schooling * in 2002, he accepted NJP for cocaine use, and was discharged from the RA with a general discharge under honorable conditions due to misconduct (6) The applicant managed, however, to later rejoin the military by enlisting in the VAARNG, despite having a reentry code of 3 (waiver required). He was also somehow able to retain his primary MOS as an Intelligence Specialist. Given the available record, it is possible the psychiatrist believed he had an unspecified personality disorder with narcissistic and antisocial features, or borderline personality disorder; but, again, it is evident a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder does not meet full criteria. (7) There is no evidence he had PTSD while in the Army. Some records available from the VA suggest he may have been traumatized as a boy, with the index event occurring before he entered military service. More to the point, there is nothing in the record to substantiate the claim of him having PTSD during his Army service. His NCOERs, and his own representations of himself as a highly competent Soldier, imply he did not meet the requirements of having significant functional incapacity, which is necessary for a PTSD diagnosis. e. In regard to the referral questions: (1) The applicant's records do not support a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder, however, the diagnosis he received at the time of his discharge is not clear, and he could have had another personality disorder. (2) The applicant's available records do not, at the time of his discharge, reasonably support he had a boardable medical BH condition. (3) He met medical retention standards under the provisions of AR 40-501 and AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation). (4) The ARBA psychologist could not tell, from available records, if the applicant had the medical examination required by Title 10, section 1177 [requirement was not in effect in 2007]. (5) Even if the applicant had PTSD when separated in 2007, that PTSD would not have met the criteria necessary for PDES referral. (6) The main concern is the personality disorder; and, once again, the ARBA psychologist does not believe the applicant had an antisocial personality disorder, but he could have had some other type of personality disorder. The ARBA psychologist states he lacks sufficient evidence to reject the applicant's personality disorder diagnosis, if it was not antisocial personality disorder. It may be useful for the Board to know that personalities often do not cause distress in the person with the disorder; rather, other people suffer. The technical jargon for this is personality disorders are frequently "ego-syntonic" [describing those elements of a person's behavior, thoughts, impulses, drives, and attitudes that are consistent with the total personality; these traits typify persons with personality disorders]. Hence, it is unsurprising when somebody has gone many years without being diagnosed with a personality disorder. f. Conclusions. (1) The applicant met medical retention standards under AR 40-501 and AR 635-40, as were applicable during his era of service. (2) The applicant's medical conditions were considered at the time of his discharge in 2007. (3) A review of available documentation holds that his narrative reason for separation was incorrect, if it relied on a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder. The record does not contain sufficient evidence to reject diagnoses for personality disorder, not otherwise specified; borderline personality disorder; or narcissistic personality disorder. 15. On 20 December 2016, the CMD provided a copy of the advisory opinion to the applicant for review and comment. The applicant submitted the following response: a. He was recently medically evaluated by BH providers at a VA medical center. These reports only substantiate the opinion of Dr. JD [a psychiatrist and a therapist associated with the public health management corporation institute cited above]. This doctor stated he did not have a personality disorder, and suggested there was no history of antisocial behavior since age 15, "which is contrary to the plethora of all of the evidence provided in this case." b. His case (referring to this ABCMR Docket Number) was already denied and uploaded to the internet on 21 April 2017 without a response to the attached medical advisory opinion. c. Recently, to reply to this medical advisory opinion, he was evaluated at his supporting VA medical center by Dr. MW on 9 February 2017, and then by Dr. DR on 14 February 2017. He provides the confidential reports showing the results of these evaluations. He notes he was diagnosed with PTSD and TBI as service-connected injuries incurred while on active duty during deployments to imminent fire, hazardous duty areas. d. These injuries began while he was first deployed to Kuwait [29 November 2001 to 11 June 2002] and were aggravated during his deployment to Kosovo. He sought help at the Camp Bondsteel, Kosovo Stress Clinic before meeting with Dr. (MAJ) BE (the psychiatrist claimed by applicant as giving him the personality disorder diagnosis). He had previously gone to his commander to let him know he was again having problems at home due to his deployment. He states his spouse was buying a new home in Kentucky using the checkbook he had given her to pay family bills for their child. He also sought counsel at Fort Eustis, VA upon his return from Kuwait for marital stress; he was seen and treated, and determined to be fit for duty. e. The applicant quotes a portion of a defendant's second motion, filed in Federal court on 9 September 2014, wherein the defendants (the Secretaries of the Navy, Army, and Air Force) requested the case in question be voluntarily remanded based on the Secretary of Defense's 3 September 2014 memorandum regarding BCMR handling of PTSD cases. [The cited case involved five Vietnam-era former Soldiers who had been discharged under other than honorable conditions, and were requesting upgrades based on having PTSD.] f. The applicant also stated he had found new evidence that he was not assigned, and not under the command of his VAARNG unit (1st Battalion, 116th Infantry Regiment) when he was discharged. In making this claim, he refers to the orders shown below, and states they reflect he was improperly and inequitably discharged: (1) Orders Number 025-009, dated 25 January 2007, issued by Task Force Red Dragon, 1-116th Infantry, shows the applicant being attached to the Headquarters and Headquarters Company (Forward - 2), 1st Battalion, 116th Infantry Regiment, for administrative and training purposes. The order also shows the effective date was 1 January 2007, and was for the period 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2007. (2) Orders 311-0087, dated 7 November 2007, issued by Headquarters, U.S. Army Fort Dix, reassigned the applicant from Company B, Installation Support Battalion, Fort Dix, NJ to the U.S. Army Transition Point effective 7 November 2007. g. He provides two extracts from his VA medical records: (1) Compensation and Pension (C&P) Multiple Examination Note –Review Evaluation of Residuals of TBI Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ), dated 9 February 2017 and completed by MW: * diagnosis: does the Veteran now have or has he ever had a TBI or any residuals of a TBI? "Yes, TBI" * applicant stated the onset of his TBI occurred in 2000, while stationed at Fort Eustis when a 2-inch galvanized pipe struck his head, resulting in a brief loss of consciousness (2) C&P Multiple Examination Note – Review PTSD DBQ, dated 14 February 2017, and completed by DAR, PhD: * diagnosis: does the Veteran now have or has he ever been diagnosed with PTSD? "Yes" * applicant reports having violent nightmares one to three times a month; blames commanders for inept leadership; onset was during deployment to Kuwait * second diagnosis is major depressive disorder, recurrent, secondary to PTSD * no specific traumatic event(s) were addressed as causing the applicant's PTSD REFERENCES: 1. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), published by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) in 2013, defines ten distinct personality disorders, which include antisocial, borderline, and narcissistic types. 2. AR 635-200, in effect at the time, prescribed policy and procedures for active duty enlisted separations. a. Chapter 2 (Procedures for Separation), section I (Notification Procedure) details guidance for notifying Soldiers who are being considered for separation under various paragraphs within this regulation, to include paragraph 5-13. The Soldier will be informed in writing: (1) He or she is being recommended for separation. (2) Whether the action may result in either discharge or release from active duty. (3) The least favorable characterization of service or description of separation he or she could receive. (4) The separation authority is not bound by the recommendations of initiating or intermediate commanders, and has complete discretion to direct any type of discharge and characterization of service authorized by the provisions of this regulation. b. The Soldier will further be advised of the following rights: (1) Consult with military counsel within a reasonable time (not less than 3 duty days). The Soldier may also consult with civilian counsel at his or her own expense. (2) Submit statements in his/her own behalf. (3) Obtain copies of documents that will be sent to the separation authority supporting the proposed separation. (4) If he/she has 6 or more years of total active and reserve service on the date of initiation of the recommended separation action, he or she has the right to a hearing before an administrative separation board. (5) Waive the above rights in writing. c. Paragraph 5-3 (Secretarial Plenary Authority) states, separation under this paragraph is the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. This type of authority is exercised sparingly and on a case-by-case basis. It is normally used when no other provision of this regulation applies. d. Paragraph 5-13 provided guidance for separations for personality disorders not amounting to disability, as outlined in AR 635-40. (1) A personality disorder is a deeply ingrained, maladaptive pattern of behavior of a long duration, which interferes with the Soldier's ability to perform duty. (2) The diagnosis of personality disorder must have been established by a psychiatrist or doctoral-level clinical psychologist with necessary and appropriate professional credentials who is privileged to conduct mental health evaluations for the Department of Defense components. [While the APA defines 10 distinct types of personality disorder, the regulation makes no distinction for separation purposes.] [Until a change was made in 2009 wherein the diagnosis had to be confirmed by The Office of the Surgeon General for the Army, only one diagnosis was needed to support separation. The 2009 change applied only to Soldiers who were deployed and were within the first 24 months of active duty service.] (3) Separation under this provision is authorized only if the diagnosis concludes the disorder is so severe, the Soldier's ability to function effectively in the military environment is significantly impaired. (4) Separation is not appropriate when it is warranted under other chapters of the regulation (to include chapter 4 (Separation for Expiration of Service Obligation) and chapter 5, (other than paragraph 5-13, and AR 635-40). (5) When it has been determined that separation under this paragraph is appropriate, the unit commander will take the actions specified in the notification procedure outlined in chapter 2, section I. (6) The service of a Soldier separated under this provision will be characterized as honorable. 3. On 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records to carefully consider applications from former service members who were administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions, and who have since been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional. The Boards were asked to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of an applicant's service, based on the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations, and mitigating factors. 4. AR 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR)) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR. a. Paragraph 2-9 contains guidance on the burden of proof. It states, in pertinent part, that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity, which is that what the Army did was correct. b. The ABCMR is not an investigative body and decides cases based on the evidence that is presented in the military records provided and the independent evidence submitted with the application. The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence. c. The ABCMR may, in its discretion, hold a hearing or request additional evidence or opinions. It states further, in paragraph 2-11, that applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR. The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires. DISCUSSION: 1. The Board originally evaluated this ABCMR Docket Number on 21 April 2016. Prior to finalization, a determination was made to have the case reviewed by an ARBA psychologist, which was accomplished in December 2016. In the interim, the Record of Proceedings for the earlier Board was mistakenly added to the ABCMR's reading room. This earlier version of the Record of Proceedings has since been withdrawn. 2. By regulation, an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the Board. Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the Board or by the Director of the ABCMR. In this case, the evidence of record, including independent evidence he provided, is sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision at this time. 3. The applicant asserts there were improprieties with his separation action. a. He claims there was undue command influence in his case, and, apart from his assertion, offers no proof. b. He additionally contends he was not afforded counsel, despite his election. In support, he submits a copy of the memorandum indicating his elections as well as a letter from 1SG BKB. The memorandum shows he requested military and civilian counsel, and the letter by 1SG BKB indicates military counsel was not available; however, the applicant was provided telephonic access to a counsel in Germany [at the time the applicant was deployed in Kosovo]. c. He asserts the psychiatrist who gave him the personality disorder diagnosis should have had it confirmed by a second BH provider. The regulation in effect at the time only required one diagnosis of personality disorder, but specified it had to be made by a psychiatrist or doctoral-level clinical psychologist with necessary and appropriate professional credentials who is privileged to conduct mental health evaluations for the Department of Defense components. The evidence of record suggests, as a military psychiatrist, the diagnosing doctor met this criteria. d. The ABCMR begins its consideration of each case assuming administrative regularity. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the applicant's administrative separation proceedings are presumed to be correct. 4. He contends the military psychiatrist incorrectly diagnosed personality disorder; instead, the diagnosis should have been PTSD. The evidence he submits affirms a diagnosis of PTSD, although the earliest date of diagnosis is 2010, nearly 3 years after his discharge. He provides no medical evidence, dating from prior to his 4 December 2007 separation, of a PTSD diagnosis or that he was suffering from PTSD symptoms. 5. He asserts the psychiatrist who provided the diagnosis of personality disorder was biased against him in that he was alleged to have written in one of his emails that he was "unconcerned with what the test results may conclude" and that he felt it was "his duty" to proceed with the applicant's discharge. The applicant does not provide this email as evidence. The email the applicant does provide shows the psychiatrist sought to confirm the diagnosis of personality disorder. The email additionally suggests the applicant scored high on the Lie-scale of a psychological test (11 questions out of 15), thus apparently presenting himself in an unrealistically favorable light. While the email indicates this result did not help to affirm personality disorder, it also does not prove he was not properly diagnosed. 6. A medical advisory opinion by an ARBA psychologist found that, while there was no proof the applicant had an antisocial personality disorder, the evidence of record did not preclude him from having one of the other nine, and suggested borderline and/or narcissistic personality disorders as possible alternatives. With regard to PTSD, the ARBA psychologist indicated the applicant's VA records suggested he may have been traumatized as a boy, with the index event occurring before he entered military service, but that there was no evidence he failed medical retention standards, while on active duty, based upon PTSD. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings AR20150000953 Enclosure 1 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150008694 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160002465 16 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2