ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


BOARD DATE: 11 June 2019 
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20160017778

APPLICANT REQUESTS THROUGH COUNSEL: placement into the Integrated 
Disability Evaluation System (IDES) to determine if he should have been medically 
separated; change narrative reason for his separation on his DD Form 214 to secretarial 
authority; personal appearance before the Board

COUNSEL'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:

   *	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	counsel’s 7-page supplemental statement
*	applicant’s separation packet
*	2 DA Forms 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation)
*	medical documents
   *	2 DD Forms 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) 
FACTS:
1.	In a 7-page Supplemental Statement counsel states, in part:

   a.	The applicant was separated for misconduct with an honorable characterization of 
service. At the time of separation, he was still being diagnosed for post-traumatic stress 
disorder (PTSD). A medical evaluation board (MEB) was being contemplated and the 
applicant had not been determined to be fit for duty by his treating mental health 
providers. He was separated prior to receiving a proper diagnosis and was never 
properly cleared by mental health providers.

b.	The applicant served on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) from
13 June 2002 through 30 April 2009. He attained the rank of Captain and had four combat 
tours in Iraq. On 30 April 2009, he resigned his commission in the USMC to enlist in the 
Army and join the elite ranks of the United States Army Special Forces. On 4 May 2009, he 
enlisted in the Army in the rank of sergeant. He deployed three times to Afghanistan and 
was promoted to the rank of sergeant first class.

   c.	The applicant developed PTSD from his multiple combat deployments in Iraq. He 
started using alcohol to cope with his condition. On 25 May 2012, he was stopped for 
driving under the influence of alcohol.  On 9 August 2015, he was again stopped for driving
   


under the influence of alcohol. Those two incidents formed the basis of his separation for 
misconduct. As part of the involuntary separation action, the applicant was evaluated for 
fitness for duty on multiple occasions.  Those evaluations are the subject of his 
complaint.

   d.	On 10 September 2015, the applicant was first evaluated during a mental health 
separation physical by Ms. M, a licensed clinical social worker (LCSW). Up to this point, he 
had never sought treatment for his PTSD. He was determined fit for duty during a rushed 
evaluation, but wanted to meet with his provider to discuss his issues more thoroughly. He 
scheduled a follow up with the same provider to thoroughly discuss his condition.  On
4 December 2015, he met with Ms. M again. She completed a mental health examination 
and filled out a new report of mental status evaluation. She withdrew her previous finding of 
"fit for duty" and specifically noted:

Further assessment indicates that service member (SM) requires evaluation prior to 
psychologically clearing him for administrative action. Recommendation is that SM 
follow up for further evaluation for symptoms of PTSD that may be duty limiting. This 
SM is mentally responsible, can distinguish right from wrong and possesses 
sufficient mental capacity to understand and participate intelligently as a respondent 
in any administrative proceedings. This SM is NOT psychologically cleared at this 
time for administrate action; however, final determination of separation remains the 
responsibility of the separation authority.

In the same examination, she noted the applicant scored a 3 of 4 on a PTSD screening, 
which she noted as a positive result for PTSD.

   e.	On 12 January 2016, the applicant’s treating psychiatrist, noted that applicant needed 
further evaluation and treatment for PTSD before being chaptered, but it may be too late 
because his command was ready to separate him. On 27 January 2016, Ms. M noted that 
that the applicant met medical retention standards from behavioral health perspective, 
Medical retention was under consideration, and SM continues to reveal additional 
symptoms. She also noted that PTSD was being contemplated as a diagnosis. She does 
not explain the obvious contradiction in her findings where she found that the applicant was 
fit for duty, but that his medical retention and PTSD diagnosis are still pending while he 
continues to reveal additional symptoms.

   f.	On 8 February 2016, the applicant was diagnosed with PTSD. Ms. M noted that the 
applicant’s diagnosis was PTSD, Depressive Disorder Unspecified. The applicant’s 
symptoms met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD. Current PCL-5 score is 65, the applicant 
acknowledged intrusive thoughts, avoidance behaviors and symptoms of hyper vigilance, 
hyper arousal. She continued to note in his treatment plan that PTSD treatment protocol 
was not implemented due to the brief time he had remaining in treatment due to chapter 
discharge from the military.

   g.	On 11 February 2016, another of applicant’s treating psychiatrists, noted the 
applicant met retention criteria and was responsible for behaviors and cleared for
   


administrative action deemed needed by command. Assessment is ongoing as to the 
applicant’s fitness for duty. The provider fails to explain how a Soldier could possibly 
meet retention criteria and concurrently be considered for an MEB.

   h.	On 1 April 2016, the applicant was found fit for duty through a standard 
separation physical (not a mental health evaluation).  There was no mention of any of 
the applicant’s physical or mental diagnoses noted on the form.  The applicant was 
never determined to be fit for duty by any mental health professional. On 28 April 2016, 
the applicant’s separation was approved. On 11 May 2016, Dr. M confirmed the 
applicant’s PTSD diagnosis, unspecified.

   i.	On 9 August 2016, the applicant was separated from the Army with an honorable 
discharge in accordance with his separation proceedings. The approval authority never 
considered the applicant’s disqualifying mental health condition. The full extent of the 
applicant’s PTSD was never fully diagnosed and still has not been diagnosed.

   j.	The law is clear on the requirement to either conclusively diagnose or rule out a 
diagnosis for disqualifying medical and mental health conditions prior to any 
administrative separation. A Soldier pending separation for misconduct must be cleared 
by a mental health provider prior to final approval of the involuntary separation action. 
The question becomes whether nor not when the applicant’s separation was approved, 
had he been completely ruled out for MEB processing for PTSD, the answer is no. The 
severity of the applicant’s PTSD was still being diagnosed.

   k.	The applicant was improperly separated prior to receiving a complete PTSD 
diagnosis and determination of whether he was eligible for IDES processing. Had the 
applicant been determined unfit for duty by a MEB, there is a significant likelihood that 
the general court-martial convening authority (GCMCA) would have allowed the 
applicant to continue with his physical evaluation board (PEB) instead of administrative 
separation. Counsel’s complete Supplemental Statement is available for the Board’s 
review.

2.	After having prior service in the USMC, the applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army.

3.	The applicant completed seven combat tours from 2004 through 2015.

4.	The applicant received two General Officer Memorandum of Reprimands for driving 
under the influence of alcohol.

5.	A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 10 September 2015, found the applicant to 
be fit for duty from a behavioral health standpoint. It notes the applicant had been screened 
for PTSD and the results were negative. It notes the applicant reported some adjustment 
difficulties due to 7 combat tours.  His level of symptoms reported did not warrant 
disposition through medical channels.



6.	On 4 December 2015, the applicant's commander notified him of his intent to 
separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted 
Administrative Separations), chapter 14-12c (Commission of a Serious Offense). The 
commander's reason was the applicant had being pulled over for driving under the 
influence on two separate occasions. The commander recommended the applicant 
service be characterized as general, under honorable conditions. The applicant 
acknowledged receipt of the notice and his available rights.

7.	A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, dated 9 December 2015, found further 
assessment was needed to determine fitness for duty. It notes the applicant was reporting 
a history of 7 combat tours. Further assessment indicates he requires evaluation prior to 
psychologically clearing him for administrative action. It was recommended the applicant 
follow up for further evaluation for symptoms of PTSD that may be duty limiting. The 
applicant was not psychologically cleared for administrative action; however, final 
determination of separation remains the responsibility of the separation authority.

8.	On 5 February 2016, the applicant voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an 
administrative separation board contingent upon receiving a characterization of service 
or description of separation no less than honorable.

9.	On 28 April 2016, the separation authority approved the applicant’s separation under 
the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14-12c, Commission of a
Serious Offense and directed the applicant be separated from the service with an 
honorable discharge.

10.	On 9 August 2016, the applicant was discharged in accordance with the separation 
authority’s decision. His DD Form 214 reflects he completed 7 years, 3 month, and 6 
days of net active service this period, with 6 years, 10 months, and 27 days of total prior 
active service.

11.	On 8 June 2017, the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) psychologist provided 
an advisory opinion. The ARBA psychologist concluded based on thorough review of 
available medical records, there is evidence that the applicant met criteria for PTSD 
during his military service. Because PTSD can be associated with use of alcohol and 
substances for self-medication, impaired judgment, and impulsivity, there is a nexus 
between this applicant’s misconduct and his behavioral health symptoms. Although the 
Report of Medical Examination dated 1 April 2016 indicated the applicant met medical 
retention standards, his main treatment providers (M, M, and W) all indicated the 
applicant either needed further evaluation, consideration for an MEB, was not fit for 
duty, or did not meet medical retention standards for PTSD.  Neither provider indicated 
if and/or when the applicant was psychiatrically cleared. In summary, given the lack of 
final determination by treating mental health providers regarding his fitness for duty, the 
applicant’s behavioral health conditions could have been considered for a MEB prior to 
separation.   A copy of the complete medical advisory was provided to the Board for 
their review and consideration.





12.	In response to the advisory opinion counsel states he has no comment as the 
advisory opinion supports their request.

13.	Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted 
personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating 
members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a 
pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil 
authorities. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly 
established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge 
under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate for a Soldier 
discharged under this chapter.

14.	Department of Defense Manual 1332.18, Volume 2, currently in effect, prescribes 
policies and procedures for the processing of Soldiers with duty-related disabling 
medical conditions. IDES is a joint Department of Defense and VA process by which it 
is determined if Soldiers who have been wounded, ill, or injured are fit for continued 
military service.

15.	Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or 
Separation), in effect at the time, established the Army's disability evaluation system 
(DES) and set forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures governing the evaluation 
for physical fitness of Soldiers who might be unfit to perform their military duties 
because of physical disability.

BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.	The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, 
evidence in the records and the medical advisory opinion. The Board discussed the 
conditions of his separation, the lack of documentation clearing his for separation and 
the advising official’s conclusion that the applicant’s behavioral health conditions could 
have been considered for a MEB prior to separation. The Board determined that his 
conditions should be evaluated further to determine if medical separation or retirement 
was appropriate. As a result, the Board determined that any change to the applicant’s 
narrative reason for separation would be premature and that the request for a personal 
appearance should be denied.

2.	After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that 
relief was warranted.



BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1
Mbr 2
Mbr 3

:
:
:
GRANT FULL RELIEF
:X
:X
:XJ
GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
:
:
:
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
:
:
:
DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

 1.	The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a 
recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all 
Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by referring 
his records to the Office of The Surgeon General for review to determine if he had any 
condition(s) at the time of his separation that did not meet medical retention standards:
   a.	If a review by the Office of The Surgeon General determines the evidence 
supports it, the individual concerned will be afforded due process through the Disability 
Evaluation System for consideration of any diagnoses identified as having not met 
retention standards prior to his discharge.
   b.	In the event that a formal PEB becomes necessary, the individual concerned may 
be issued invitational travel orders to prepare for and participate in consideration of his 
case by a formal PEB. All required reviews and approvals will be made subsequent to 
completion of the formal PEB.
   c.	Should a determination be made that the applicant should be retired for disability, 
these proceedings serve as the authority to issue him the appropriate separation 
retroactive to his original separation date, with entitlement to all back pay and 
allowances and/or retired pay, less any entitlements already received.
   


2.	The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a 
portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of 
the application that pertains to any relief without benefit of the review described above.



2 July 2019

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.


ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S):

Not Applicable



REFERENCES:

1.	Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets 
forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 
establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. 
Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, 
commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities. Action will be 
taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that 
rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. A discharge under other than 
honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate for a Soldier discharged under 
this chapter.

2.	Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or 
Separation), in effect at the time, established the Army's disability evaluation system 
(DES) and set forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures governing the evaluation 
for physical fitness of Soldiers who might be unfit to perform their military duties 
because of physical disability.

   a.	Chapter 3 (Policies) stated the mere presences of an impairment did not, of itself, 
justify a finding of unfitness because of physical disability. In each case, it was 
necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the 
requirements of the duties the Soldier reasonably could be expected to perform 
because of his/her office, grade, rank, or rating.

   b.	Chapter 4 (Procedures), section I (Eligibility for Disability Evaluation) described 
situations where a Soldier might not be eligible for processing within the DES.

      (1)	An enlisted Soldier for whom separation action had been initiated, and for 
which a character of service of under other than honorable conditions discharge was 
authorized, was not to be referred into or continue processing through the DES.




when:


(2)	T
he 
co
m
m
an
de
r 
wi
th 
G
C
M
C
A 
co
ul
d 
ab
at
e 
th
e 
ad
ve
rs
e 
se
pa
ra
tio
n 
ac
tio
n


*	h
e
/
s
h
e
 
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
 
t
h
e
 
d
i
s
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
 
w
a
s
 
t
h
e
 
c
a
u
s
e
,
 
o
r
 
w
a
s
 
a
 
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
 
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
n
g
 
c
a
u
s
e
,
 
o
f
 
t
h
e
 
m
i
s
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
 
t
h
a
t
 
m
i
g
h
t
 
r
e
s
u
l
t
 
i
n
 
a
 
d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
 
u
n
d
e
r
 
o
t
h
e
r
 
t
h
a
n
 
h
o
n
o
r
a
b
l
e
 
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
*	the
re 
we
re 
oth
er 
cir
cu
ms
tan
ce
s 
tha
t 
wa
rra
nte
d 
dis
abi
lity 
pr
oc
es
sin
g



      (3)	When the GCMCA abated the adverse separation action in favor of DES 
processing, the decision had to be in writing, and a signed copy of the decision was 
required to be forwarded with the disability case file to the PEB.
      


   b. Appendix E (Personnel Processing Actions) stated enlisted personnel discharged 
because of physical disability would normally be characterized as honorable, but a 
general discharge under honorable conditions was also authorized when that Soldier's 
service was satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable 
characterization.

3.	Department of Defense Manual 1332.18, Volume 2, currently in effect, prescribes 
policies and procedures for the processing of Soldiers with duty-related disabling 
medical conditions.

   a.	IDES is a joint Department of Defense and VA process by which it is determined 
if Soldiers who have been wounded, ill, or injured are fit for continued military service.

   b.	In consultation with the Soldier's commander and on approval by the MEB 
convening authority, a military medical provider refers a Soldier with disabling medical 
conditions to IDES.

      (1)	The VA provides the medical examinations (identified as C&P examinations) 
of the disabling conditions. Then, based on the VA's medical examinations, an MEB 
makes an assessment to identify those medical conditions that fail to meet medical 
retention standards.  All conditions failing retention standards are referred to a PEB for 
a fitness determination.

      (2)	Conditions found by the PEB to be unfitting are sent to the VA for a disability 
rating. In determining the rating(s) to be assigned, the VA uses the VA Schedule for 
Rating Disabilities (VASRD). Each rated disability is assigned a code by VA in 
accordance with the schedule of ratings within the VASRD.

      (3)	Upon receipt of the disability rating(s) from the VA, the results are finalized 
and the disposition can include the Soldier being returned to duty or separated (either 
with severance pay, if the total disability rating is 20 percent or less, or retired, for those 
cases where the disability rating is 30 percent or higher).