BOARD DATE: 18 July 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160007055 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: 18 July 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160007055 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. ______________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: 18 July 2017 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160007055 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 correction of the narrative reason for separation shown on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). 2. He states while serving in Germany as a tactical operations specialist, his section chief isolated him and threatened to rape him, which led to a mental state of confusion and disbelief. He adds that after reporting the incident to his commanding officer, he was separated from the Army within 2 days. He reports subsequent problems with alcoholism, employment, and a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and treatment with psychiatric medications post-service. 3. He provides a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Mental Disorders Disability Benefits Questionnaire, dated 24 October 2014. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1.  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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 June 1980. He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty 36K (Tactical Wireman). 3. He served in Germany from 14 November 1980 to 21 April 1981. 4. His disciplinary history includes acceptance of nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, on or about 22 October 1980 for stealing property of another Soldier. 5. His records show he was counseled multiple times between 2 January and 25 February 1981 for minor disciplinary infractions as follows: * 2 January 1981, for being late for formation * 6 February 1981, for personal problems wherein his mother requested he be reassigned closer to home, that he respond to her letters, and that he regularly write her warranting supervision by his first sergeant * 9 February 1981, for personal financial mismanagement, debt to the U.S. Government, and lying, as well as possible administrative separation for unfitness or unsuitability under the provisions of Army 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel) chapter 13 * 24 February 1981, for playing his stereo extremely loud * 25 February 1981, for being late to formation 6. On 24 March 1981, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the Army for unsuitability under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-4b. 7. On 24 March 1981, he acknowledged receipt of the commander's notification. 8. On 31 March 1981, the applicant consulted with military counsel. After being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects and the rights available to him, he elected not to appear before an administrative board and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. He acknowledged he understood he would receive an Honorable Discharge Certificate. 9. In the recommendation for elimination, dated 3 April 1981, the applicant's company commander stated: SM [Service member] has been assigned to the Battery Commo [Communications] Section as a field wireman where he has been doing a fair job. He has not been considered for a rehab[ilitation] transfer because his job is not his problem. He basically has a personality disorder which makes it difficult for him to function effectively as a soldier. He has continuously lied on and/or to his supervisors and peers since his arrival in the battery, and refuses to accept responsibility for his actions. Such conduct is deemed less than acceptable and is to the prejudice of good order and discipline within the unit. I strongly recommend that [Applicant] be discharged from the service as soon as possible. 10. On 7 April 1981, the battalion commander stated the applicant was examined by the Department of Psychiatry, Wurzburg Military Hospital, Germany, on 9 March 1981. It was determined that he suffers from a personality disorder (i.e., inadequate personality). The psychiatrist further stated the applicant should be separated for the good of the U.S. Army. 11. On 13 April 1981, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative requirements and approved the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-4b. He directed the issuance of an Honorable Discharge Certificate. 12. The applicant was discharged accordingly on 22 April 1981. His DD Form 214 shows he completed 10 months and 4 days of net active service. He was assigned a separation program designator code JMB. 13. On 12 December 2016, the ABCMR obtained an advisory opinion from the Army Review Boards Agency clinical psychologist, who states there is no evidence that a diagnosis of PTSD existed during or following the applicant's military service. a. Military records indicated the applicant's early separation from the Army was based on several infractions. A DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice) indicated he committed larceny by stealing property from another Soldier. His formal counseling, dated 11 February 1981, indicated he demonstrated a critical problem of not always telling the truth and he had blatantly lied regarding receipt of nonjudicial punishment for financial problems. Military medical records indicated a behavioral health evaluation was conducted on 9 March 1981 and determined he suffered from a personality disorder. It was recommended that he be immediately separated from service for the good of the Army. The commander further stated the applicant's personality disorder made it difficult for him to function effectively as a Soldier and that he had continuously lied to his superiors and peers since arriving at the battery. b. VA medical records indicated the applicant underwent a Mental Disorders Disability Benefits Evaluation on 21 October 2014. He was diagnosed with paranoid personality disorder and persistent depressive disorder. It indicated that his longstanding and pervasive paranoia likely increased his depressed mood, resulting in poor concentration, isolation, and withdrawal from most social and occupational settings. Regarding his military history, he reported that his pattern of cognition and behavior developed in response to the racism and discrimination experienced during his military service resulting in his discharge. It was determined by the examiner that although the applicant's personality disorder tended to be longstanding and representative of deeply engrained ways of behaving, thinking, and relating, without a full psychological testing battery, it would not be possible to determine if his personality patterns developed prior to his discharge from military service. c. Based on a thorough review of the applicant's available medical records, there is no evidence that the diagnosis of PTSD existed during or following his military service. His records are void of a Criminal Investigation Command/ Military Police Report or other supportive information to substantiate his claim of being threatened with rape and subsequently discharged shortly after reporting the incident. A review of medical documentation found evidence for diagnoses of paranoid personality disorder and depression; however, the presence of these behavioral health conditions are not reasonably related to the misconduct of larceny, habitual lying, or not taking responsibility for his own behavior and, therefore, would not support a change to the reason for the discharge in this case. Furthermore, the disability evaluation conducted by the VA indicated that without a full psychological evaluation, a decision regarding his personality pattern as service connected could not be rendered. 14. On 13 December 2016, the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for his acknowledgement and or response. No response was received. REFERENCES: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 in effect at the time provided for separation due to inaptitude, personality disorder, apathy, and homosexuality (tendencies, desires, or interest but without overt homosexual acts). Separation action would be taken when, in the commander's judgment, the individual would not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further military training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier. Service of Soldiers separated because of unsuitability under this regulation was characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions (general). 2. Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, established standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214. The DD Form 214 is a summary of a Soldier's most recent period of continuous active service. It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge. Paragraph 2-4 requires the preparer to enter the narrative reason for separation as shown in Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes). 3. Army Regulation 635-5-1, in effect at the time, prescribed the specific authorities and reasons for separating Soldiers from active service and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. SPD code JMB applied to persons discharged for personality disorders. DISCUSSION: 1. The applicant requests amendment of his narrative reason for separation to something other than unsuitable personality disorders. 2. The evidence of record shows he was examined by the Department of Psychiatry on 9 March 1981 which determined he suffers from a personality disorder (i.e., inadequate personality). The psychiatrist recommended his separation for the good of the U.S. Army. 3. A review of the applicant's case by a clinical psychologist found no documentation in his military records that shows the diagnosis of PTSD existed during or following his military service. The psychologist stated a review of the applicant's medical documentation found evidence for diagnoses of paranoid personality disorder and depression; however, the presence of these behavioral health conditions are not reasonably related to his misconduct. Therefore, it would not support a change to the reason for the discharge action in this case. 4. The evidence further shows he was assigned SPD code JMB and the narrative reason for separation of unsuitable personality disorders which is consistent with the information cited in the above regulation. There is no evidence and he has not provided any evidence showing his narrative reason for discharge in April 1981 should have been based on any other diagnosis, to include 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) AR20160007055 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20160007055 6 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Enclosure 2