BOARD DATE: 6 February 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160004715 BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing the applicant's DD Form 214 to show he was discharged under the authority of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-3, with the narrative reason for separation listed as Secretarial Authority, and associated SPD code. 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: 6 February 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160004715 BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 ::x :x :x GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION 2 Enclosures 1. Board Determination/Recommendation 2. Evidence and Consideration BOARD DATE: 6 February 2018 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160004715 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, reconsideration of his earlier requests to correct the following items on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). He also requests a personal appearance before the Board. * item 26 (Separation Code (SPD)) – delete "LFX" and replace with "JFF" * item 27 (Reentry (RE) Code) – enter RE-1 instead of RE-3 * item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – change the narrative reason for separation from "Personality Disorder" to "Secretarial Authority" 2. The applicant states: a. The Record of Proceedings (ROP) of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20130022144, dated 23 July 2014, clearly indicates his case was not properly considered. Moreover, the ROP never cited, referenced, evaluated, or discussed any of the evidence submitted. b. Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (formerly titled Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel and currently titled Personnel Separations – Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets forth the requirements for separation based on having a personality disorder. The applicant claims he exceeded the maximum allowable active duty time in service, which is required for the issuance of that designation. (The applicant is apparently referring to the guidance stated in the current version of AR 635-200, wherein it states "a Soldier with less than 24 months of active duty service, as of the date separation proceedings are initiated, may be separated for personality disorder." The version of this regulation in effect at the time of the applicant's separation did not include this language and there were no limits set for time in service.) c. The requirements of AR 635-200 have been contravened through this issuance of a personality disorder designation. When he received this narrative reason for separation, he had already honorably completed one full term of enlistment on active duty. Furthermore, after being separated for personality disorder, he went on to complete one additional full enlistment in the Army National Guard (ARNG), from which he was honorably discharged (the record shows he was released from active duty (REFRAD) from the Regular Army and discharged from the Florida ARNG (FLARNG)). d. More importantly, the applicant contends, a personality disorder constitutes a medical diagnosis that must be issue by a licensed practitioner. The Board's own records (in the ROP for AR20130022144) clearly state "the record is void of the complete facts and circumstances" that led to his separation. In short, the applicant asserts he was never diagnosed with a personality disorder and, in his earlier applications, provided evidence (in the form of an evaluation by a licensed mental health practitioner) that unambiguously attested to the fact he did not have, nor had he ever had, a personality disorder. e. The Board determined, since the forms (apparently meaning his DD Form 214) were "duly constituted," his separation had to be presumed as administratively correct. In other words, the Board found, because the designation of personality disorder was issued, it had to be correct. This finding shows without a doubt that due diligence was not made, and factual evidence was disregarded. The applicant further notes that, while the letter he received from the ABCMR announcing the Board's results was dated 30 July 2014, it was not postmarked until 17 December 2014 (more than 4 months later). f. Because he was honorably separated from both the U.S. Army (as an active duty Soldier) and the ARNG, he asserts he has the right to the impartial and appropriate consideration of his appeal as well as the evidence he submits. He expressed his desire to file a formal complaint and submit a formal appeal. 3. The applicant provides no additional documentary evidence. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by ABCMR in Docket Numbers AC98-11332, dated 19 November 1998, and AR20130022144 on 23 July 2014. 2. The applicant filed four previous petitions to the ABCMR requesting a change in the narrative reason for separation (on 5 January 1995, 15 October 2012, 6 December 2013, and 18 March 2015, respectively); the Board addressed two and two were administratively closed. He now submits new arguments that warrant consideration. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 September 1991 and held military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman). 4. He initially served at Fort Stewart, GA, as a wheeled vehicle mechanic from March 1992 to December 1993. 5. He was promoted to specialist/E-4 on 1 March 1993. 6. He was reassigned to Fort Wainwright, AK, in or around June 1994. 7. His available service record is void of any documentation associated with his separation, but does contain a DD Form 214, ending 8 December 1994, which shows he was honorably REFRAD. In addition, it indicates: * completed 3 years, 2 months, and 19 days of net active service * awarded or authorized Army Achievement Medal (2nd Award), National Defense Service Medal, Army Service Ribbon, and Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Automatic Rifle Bar * item 25 (Separation Authority) – AR 635-200, paragraph 5-13 (Separation because of Personality Disorder) * item 26 – SPD "LFX" (Personality Disorder) * item 27 – RE-3 (waiver required for reenlistment) * item 28 – "Personality Disorder" 8. Following his Regular Army REFRAD, on 24 April 1995, he enlisted in the FLARNG. 9. On 14 November 1997, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed his separation; the ADRB denied his request to change the reason for separation. 10. He was honorably discharged from the FLARNG on 20 May 1999. 11. On 5 June 1999, the ABCMR considered his request to amend the reason for separation, but denied his petition. 12. On 23 July 2014, the ABCMR reconsidered his earlier request to change the narrative reason for separation and addressed the additional issues of SPD and RE code. The Board presumed his separation was administratively correct and, based on this, determined both the SPD and RE codes were appropriate, given his reason for separation. 13. On 11 December 2017, the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) psychiatrist provided a medical advisory opinion. a. Although the applicant's available service record was void of any behavioral health documentation, the applicant had provided medical records. Based on a review, the ARBA psychiatrist found: * an extensive clinical evaluation with psychological testing, performed by a licensed neuropsychologist in August 2013, found no history of problematic interaction with others, marital conflicts, employment difficulties, substance abuse, or behavioral disorders * the neuropsychologist further stated, as a matter of professional opinion, the applicant did not then have, nor had he ever had, a personality disorder * two points in the applicant's psychological testing were significant: first, the testing indicated a valid profile (i.e., the responses were true and accurate); second, he was in a stable, long-term marital relationship and had achieved significant post-service success * Per the definition found in the current Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the applicant's history was inconsistent with that of a person suffering from personality disorder b. In the ARBA psychiatrist's professional opinion, the preponderance of the evidence indicated that applicant did not have a personality disorder during his period of active military service. 14. On 12 December 2017, the Case Management Division, ARBA, provided the applicant a copy of the medical advisory opinion for review and comment; he did not submit a response. REFERENCES: 1. The DSM-5, published by the American Psychiatric Association in 2013, identifies ten distinct types of personality disorder. It defines the essential features of a personality disorder as significant impairments in personality (self and interpersonal) functioning. The impairments include a mild to greater impairment in identity or self-direction; a lack of empathy or intimacy; and the impairments tend to be stable and consistent over time and across situations. 2. AR 635-200, in effect at the time, prescribed policy and procedures for active duty enlisted separations. a. Paragraph 5-3 (Secretarial Authority) states separation of enlisted personnel for the convenience of the Government is the prerogative of the Secretary of the Army. A separation under this authority was based on a determination by the Secretary of the Army that separation was in the best interests of the Army. d. Paragraph 5-13 provided guidance for separations for personality disorders not amounting to disability, as outlined in AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation). (1) A personality disorder was identified as a deeply ingrained, maladaptive pattern of behavior of long duration, which interfered with the Soldier's ability to perform duty. (2) A physician trained in psychiatry and psychiatric diagnosis was required to establish the diagnosis of personality disorder, as described in the DSM III (in effect at the time). (While the APA defines 10 distinct types of personality disorder, the regulation makes no distinction for separation purposes.) (3) Separation under this provision was authorized only if the diagnosis concluded the disorder was so severe, the Soldier's ability to function effectively in the military environment was significantly impaired. (4) Separation was not appropriate when it was more appropriate to separate under other chapters within the regulation or other regulatory guidance (i.e., chapter 4 (Separation for Expiration of Service Obligation) and chapter 5, (other than section II (Secretarial Authority), or AR 635-40). (5) The service of a Soldier separated under this provision will be characterized as honorable. 3. AR 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) states SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations which identify reasons for and types of separation from active duty. SPD code "LFX" was the correct code for Soldiers separating under the provisions of paragraph 5-13 of Army Regulation 635-200 based on personality disorder. 4. The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table provides instructions for determining the RE code for Active Army and Reserve Component Soldiers. This cross reference table shows the SPD code and a corresponding RE code. The table in effect at the time of his discharge showed the corresponding RE code for SPD code "LFX" was RE-3. 5. AR 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program) covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army and U.S. Army Reserve. It states individuals were to be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for separation prior to discharge or release from active duty. Table 3-1 includes a list of Regular Army RE codes: * An RE-1 applies to Soldiers completing their term of active service who are considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army; they are qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met * An RE-3 applies to Soldiers who are not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waivable; they are ineligible unless a waiver is granted 6. 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 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. 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. 2. The applicant arguments with regard to the results of his previous application(s) are noted. 3. During the processing of his current application, the ARBA psychiatrist provided an advisory opinion. Although the applicant's available service record was void of any behavioral health documentation, it was the ARBA psychiatrist's professional opinion that the preponderance of available evidence showed the applicant did not have a personality disorder while on active duty. This conclusion undermines the presumption of regularity, indicating that what the Army did in the applicant’s case may not have been correct. Accepting the psychiatrist’s conclusion would provide a basis for a recommendation to grant relief. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160004715 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160004715 7 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2