ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD DATE: 9 July 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170000178 APPLICANT REQUESTS: reconsideration of her prior requests for correction of her records to reflect either discharge or retirement due to physical disability in lieu of honorable discharge due to personality disorder. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * self-authored letter * Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) doctor’s letter, dated 17 October 2016 * prior company commander’s letter of support, dated 15 April 2015 FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous considerations of the applicant's cases by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20140018068 on 17 March 2015 and Docket Number AR20150013744 on 10 January 2017. 2. The applicant states: a. She was surprised to find correspondence from the Department of the Army in her mailbox, even though the thoughts of her time and experience in the Army have not been far from her thoughts. Actually, most of the time she feels like she’s still living it. She doesn’t mean that to sound cross, if that’s the way it reads. b. She enlisted for a position in the Air Defense Artillery. Her maternal grandfather served in the Army Air Force doing photo reconnaissance during World War II. He was stationed in the Philippines. Her paternal grandfather served as well, though she believes he was in the Infantry. Her brother served during peace time as a Marine. She wanted to serve during this time of war and at the time of her entry into the Army, women were not in front line combat. She would not have chosen that for herself as she was the mother of two young children. She fell into her position as an 88M (Motor Transport Operator) when her security clearance for her job choice did not come through. Based on the information she was given, her failure to get her security clearance was due to her debt, which was not insurmountable at all. She just needed to work at it and that is what she did. c. The problem with her discharge from active duty is what has since been determined to be the wrong evaluation and diagnosis by the psychiatrist. The only time she was actually evaluated by a psychiatrist was at Fort Drum soon after she returned from Iraq in May 2005. She was never evaluated in Iraq. She spent at least one night in the hospital there and she doesn’t believe anyone even offered her any food while she was there. It is true that he and Sergeant A____ had the opportunity to talk on the phone while she was there. d. Prior cases before the Board did not accurately present her thoughts as written in her own words. She never had maladaptive behaviors. She struggled ethically and morally with her job in Iraq, but she did what she was ordered to do and did not question her leadership. She only offered ideas about how to adapt to increasing insurgent activity. You must understand that for most of her time in combat theater in 2005 her platoon was in a remote camp. At the time, she was meeting with a psychiatrist and was struggling with the loss of a really great friend and the injury sustained by her significant other. Sergeant S____ A____ lost his right hand on a convoy returning to the main base as she was preparing to leave on a convoy. She entered the tactical operations center as the attack on Sergeant A____’s convoy started and realized it was his truck that was hit. e. Just because she was stateside does not mean she was not informed of the rest of the mission. She got to Walter Reed Army Medical Center and was present for the return of another one of the company’s Soldiers. She is haunted by two particular things. The last thing she heard Specialist G____ say was, “they say they won’t kill anyone with children.” She is also haunted by the faces in the back window of two young girls after she ran them and their family off the road. They were driving on the wrong side of the road for reasons unknown to her and they had been ordered to run oncoming traffic off the road. That was the first time she had to do that, but it was not the last and it is something that is difficult for her still today. Specialist G____ was killed by a roadside bomb while still on mission in Iraq later in the year, after she had left the Army. f. Honestly, she doesn’t even think she wanted to be discharged from the Army. Why would she put so much time into Green to Gold if so? She spent every opportunity she had to work on her future. When she did return to Fort Drum from the combat theater in May 2005, she was honestly afraid that someone was going to hurt her. She is not sure why. She didn’t feel she had been treated well by her peers or her leadership. She believes that was one reason she wanted to become leadership. In fact, she was put in situations where she would be walking through difficult situations with other female Soldiers, sometimes by her own choice and sometimes as ordered or requested by her superiors. She has tried to keep their secrets. They are personal in nature and not to be disclosed by her as they affected only their lives and did not put anyone in danger. g. She should have had a choice whether to enter front line combat. She would not have chosen that. She was not prepared for it. As a woman and a mother, combat was not something she considered she would be challenged with and it became something too difficult for her to handle. While she doesn’t dare to choose for another what they are capable of, she can honestly say that it was extremely difficult for her mentally and physically. h. During her first tour, she was chosen by her platoon leader to be his driver. She cannot wrap her head around his behavior, although she was told by her platoon sergeant that he talked about her in company meetings and as she understands it, he did not speak of her in a favorable light to the company commander. Several Soldiers were present when he flipped his cot over in the platoon tent in anger and he would put her at attention to talk about anything he wanted to say. At times it made her very uncomfortable. i. Her status, as defined on her discharge paperwork is embarrassing. She served the Army with the best presence of mind she could and there are several moments that made her not feel a part of the team, although she worked long hours throughout the night to help make sure the mission ran smoothly, not just for her platoon and company, but for the other companies preparing for their missions. The company was awarded coins during her first tour in combat theater, but she wasn’t awarded one. Her platoon gave out pieces of the platoon flag as Soldiers were leaving, but she wasn’t given one. She was passed up for promotion at least twice without any information as to why, which made her want to give up, but she didn’t. It was the Judge Advocate General officer who informed her what her narrative reason for discharge on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) would be. That was when she realized she would never be able to get back into the military. That was a difficult situation that she still couldn’t believe she had done anything that would put her in that type of situation. j. Life today is more difficult for her than it should be. She went on to obtain a Masters of Business Administration (MBA) and taught in a university setting. She raised her family and yes, all of this with medication for sleep and anxiety. If she doesn’t take medication, she cannot fall asleep. Obviously, due to what she endured while in the military, when she says it is more difficult, she means that she has not been able to sustain long-term employment. With this “personality disorder” on her military record, she won’t be able to work in conjunction with the military at all. Although, she is qualified and knows what she is applying for and perform the job functions, she hasn’t gotten any calls or interviews. k. Maintaining a relationship is difficult. Being relaxed enough to enjoy intercourse is difficult. The Social Security Administration does not want to give her benefits because she has an MBA and should be able to obtain gainful employment. She is literally in limbo. This is just a medical discharge. Completely defining this as a personality disorder, true or not, on a public record is in violation of HIPPA laws to say the least, and it does affect people’s futures. She is an example of that. l. What you really need to know is that she asked to return early on leave after her longtime partner was injured. She was sent back stateside and pushed into this discharge. She was never allowed to visit him at Walter Reed to determine what was best for their future and although she had been injured on her first tour and sustained more injuries on her second tour, the correct medical discharge from the Army was not obtained. Understand that she was distraught and as she sustained more and more insults about her military service, wanted less and less to do with the military and Fort Drum. There are no reprimands on her record. If you check, you will see that she had just passed her promotion board for sergeant and was awaiting a promotion. Army life did suit her and she was in talks about reenlisting. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 October 2002 and held the military occupational specialty 88M. 4. She deployed to Kuwait from 9 August 2003 through 31 April 2004 and to Iraq from 7 January 2005 through 31 May 2005. 5. Theater Medical Registry Records, dated 20, 22, and 23 May 2005, show: * she was seen while deployed to Iraq by specialists in psychiatry due to combat operational stress * she was distraught after learning her boyfriend, also a convoy driver in her company, was wounded in action by an improvised explosive device (IED) while on a convoy * she stated she could not go back to what she was doing and had to find out how he was doing * she remained on the psychiatric ward two nights due to combat stress * she was able to speak to her boyfriend and her spirits improved * her provider spoke with her command, which revealed long-standing challenges with the applicant, including constant manipulation * she did not appear to be suffering from a major mental illness although she did appear to have an acute combat stress reaction and what appeared to be long- standing abnormal personality traits * she was not suicidal * she was returned to duty but it was recommended her pending leave period begin as soon as possible to allow her to take care of personal matters then follow up with mental health professionals upon her return * she was deemed psychiatrically fit for duty 6. A MEDCOM Form 699-R (Report of Mental Status Examination), dated 25 May 2005 shows: a. A mental status evaluation was requested by the applicant’s chain of command because she was being considered for discharge because of personality disorder. Her evaluation shows her behavior was deemed aggressive; she was fully alert and fully oriented; her mood was labile, her thinking process clear, her thought content paranoid ideation, and her memory good. b. She had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings and she met the retention requirements of chapter 3, Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness). c. She was referred for evaluation by her command due to acute emotional crisis after her boyfriend was injured on a convoy. She was overwhelmed and distraught and it was felt best that she sleep in the hospital for a couple of nights with the aid of medication. Upon further evaluation, it became apparent that this stressor was the culminating stressor of a series of difficulties she had with her command and with her functioning in the military. Her reported history and her history from the command revealed a long-term pattern of interpersonal difficulties that severely impacted her ability to perform adequately as a Soldiers. Her behaviors include inappropriate and intense outbursts of anger, affective instability, impulsivity, stress-related paranoid ideation, self-mutilating behavior, manipulation and spitting. d. She was diagnosed with adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotion and conduct and borderline personality disorder. These diagnoses represent a personality disorder within the meaning of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) and Army Regualtion 40-501. Her conditions did not represent a severe mental disease or defect for the purposes of warranting disposition through medical channels and met the retention standards prescribed in chapter 3, Army Regualtion 40-501. 7. A DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form), dated 25 May 2005 shows the applicant was counseled on the date of the form by her immediate commander. It states: * she referred herself for mental health counseling on 22, 23, and 24 May 2005, where she was evaluated and diagnosed with an adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotion and conduct and a borderline personality disorder * her diagnosed disorders were severely interfering with her ability to perform her Soldier duties * her disorders were causing disruptions to morale and good order and discipline, including, hitting herself with a hammer, cutting her leg, and spreading rumors that her chain of command are conspiring to get Soldiers killed on the convoys * she also told others she was thinking of suicide * her commander is affording her plenty of opportunities to overcome her deficiencies and if she does not want to be separated, she must comply with health care provider directives and make it clear to the commander that she requests to be rehabilitated and maintain the standard * she was to make as many mental health appointments as needed per the health professionals * the applicant agreed with the counseling and wrote that she waived all requirements for rehabilitation and requested to be separated out of the Army as soon as possible 8. Her discharge packet contains a memorandum, dated 25 May 2005, signed by a U.S. Navy psychiatrist which states, in pertinent part: a. The applicant’s behavior was consistent with the diagnosis of a personality disorder. It represented a lifelong pattern of poor interpersonal and coping skills that reached multiple facets of her life. This condition and the problems presented by the applicant were not, in the opinion of the examiner, amenable to further hospitalization, treatment, transfer, disciplinary action, training, or reclassification to another type of duty within the military. Appropriate treatment in a combat theater was not available. b. The psychiatrist strongly recommended the applicant’s expeditious administrative separation. She should not continue to participate in convoy operations or have access to a weapon. She should be administratively removed from the theater as soon as possible. 9. On 26 May 2005, her immediate commander notified her he was initiating action so separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, because of a personality disorder, based on her diagnosis of adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotion and conduct and a borderline personality disorder. He recommended she receive an honorable discharge and informed her of her rights. 10. On 26 May 2005, she acknowledged having been advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to separate her for personality disorder under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13. She declined the opportunity to consult with appointed counsel and did not submit statements in her own behalf. 11. On 27 May 2005, her battalion commander recommended approval of the discharge action and on the same date her brigade commander directed her honorable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, due to personality disorder. 12. Her DD Form 214 shows he was honorably discharged from active duty on 24 June 2005, after 2 years, 8 months, and 23 days of net active service, due to personality disorder under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13. 13. A Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Rating Decision, dated 6 October 2008 shows she has a 100 percent service-connected disability rating from the VA for the multiple conditions effective 25 June 2005, including a 100 percent disability rating for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 14. The applicant previously applied to the ABCMR on two occasions requesting correction of her records to amend her discharge from honorable discharge due to personality disorder to physical disability discharge or physical disability retirement. 15. With her previous requests to the ABCMR, along with her current request, the applicant provided a letter dated 15 April 2015, composed by her prior company commander in Iraq, who had initiated her discharge in 2005. The letter states: a. His letter was to provide additional documentation to support her application to the ABCMR. She served under his command in the 57th Transportation Company in Al Anbar province, Iraq during 2005. At that time, it was a very difficult year to be a U.S. service member operating “outside the wire” in Al Anbar. As a company, they lost three Soldiers killed in action and 23 were seriously injured. b. The applicant had duties as a gun-truck driver and as the gun-truck, crew-served weapon operator of M2 and M240 Machine Guns as well as MK 19 Automatic Grenade Launchers. Al Asad had limited medical facilities that supported not only their unit but the entire Marine Expeditionary Force that was also based at Al Asad. c. He firmly believes the applicant’s experiences during 2005 were absolutely traumatic. She, like the rest of them, was exposed to extreme situations which tested the limits of their psychological resilience. Prior to her departure from country for medical reasons, members of the platoon were wounded in IED strikes. She was also personally involved in escalation of force incidents involving local national civilians. More pressing for her was the serious injury of another Soldier under his command who was the applicant’s romantic partner at the time, when he lost his right hand at the wrist in an IED strike. He clearly remembers that this incident dramatically impacted the applicant’s overall demeanor and left her shaken. She was extremely distressed and understandably angry. d. Unfortunately, their mission requirements were coming with increased frequency at that time so they were unable to take the time to address the stress on the applicant and the other Soldiers at that time. It is worth noting that as a result of her situation and other Soldiers’ combat stress, he later approached their local mental health professionals to help them develop a more proactive means of assisting their Soldiers in dealing with their experiences and the impacts to their resiliency. The later instituted stand-downs and group mental health counseling, but he applicant was sent back to Fort Drum for discharge before that program was instituted. e. With the benefit of hindsight and his own personal experiences as a veteran diagnosed with PTSD, he believes, as the applicant’s commander, he misinterpreted the signs of her PTSD while in country. He expedited her redeployment to Fort Drum, NY from Iraq with a recommendation that she be discharged, out of an abundance of caution focused exclusively on the continued operations of the company in the fight. Unfortunately, his prioritization at the time meant he did not take enough time to exercise due diligence to ensure they were doing the right thing to take care of the applicant as a Soldier. f. Leading up to their deployment and during the first month in country, the applicant was a competent and dedicated Soldier. He remembers noting her commitment to mission during training exercises and pre-deployment operations. Her perceived behavioral problems did not start until after they started their extremely stressful and hazardous convoy escort mission. He personally struggled to compartmentalize the results of their escalation of fire incidents and the results of IED attacks and contact with enemy insurgents. If those events were difficult for him as the commander, someone with a degree of control over the environment and the mission orders, he can only imagine how much more difficult it must have been for his Soldiers. g. The applicant served our Army with competence, commitment, and distinction. She dealt with an environment and conditions that have left similar psychological impacts on numerous other veterans of Iraq. As her wartime company commander, he asks the Board to please reconsider her application to charge her narrative reason for discharge from personality disorder to physical disability discharge or retirement. 16. On 17 March 2015 and again on 10 January 2017, both of her requests to the ABCMR were denied by the Board. 17. With her current application, the applicant provided a letter, dated 17 October 2016, from a doctor at the William S. Middleton Memorial Veterans hospital which states the applicant has been seen at that health clinic since 2007. Her primary diagnosis is PTSD and her secondary diagnosis is psychotic episodes due to sleep deprivation. She has no diagnosis of personality disorder in her treatment in the past 10 years. She was diagnosed with a personality disorder after acute trauma while in the military, but she had never previously been diagnosed with a personality disorder and has no subsequent diagnosis of a personality disorder. She does not have symptoms of or meet diagnostic criteria for a personality disorder diagnosis. And it is far more likely than not that her symptoms during the military were related to PTSD. 18. On 25 October 2018, the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) medical advisor/psychiatrist provided an advisory opinion, which states: a. The applicant’s military records indicate she received the following behavioral health diagnoses while deployed to Iraq: adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotion and conduct and borderline personality disorder. b. After reviewing the applicant’s case and the new documentation submitted by the applicant, it is the Agency psychiatrist’s opinion that the applicant’s maladaptive behaviors while on active duty were more likely than not due to the stress of combat (diagnosed at the time as adjustment disorder with mixed disturbance of emotion and conduct) and not due to a pre-existing personality disorder. As such, her discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, due to personality disorder is considered inappropriate. A more appropriate separation authority and narrative reason for discharge would be Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17, due to other designated physical or mental conditions. c. A review of the available records indicates she did not suffer from any medically unfitting behavioral health conditions and she was found to meet medical retention standards while on active duty. There is no evidence in her military records indicating that her behavioral health conditions necessitated permanent duty limitations, required extended or recurrent hospitalization, or rendered her unfit for duty. Consequently, a referral of her case to the Integrated Disability Evaluation System for medical disability retirement/discharge consideration is not indicated. A copy of the complete medical advisory was provided to the Board for their review and consideration. 19. A copy of the advisory opinion was provided to the applicant on 30 October 2018 and she was given an opportunity to submit comments, but did not respond. 20. 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. 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. 21. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rating of at least 30 percent. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years of service and a disability rating of less than 30 percent. 22. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. 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. b. Paragraph 5-17 states a service member may be separated for other designated physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability that potentially interfere with assignment to or performance of duty. A recommendation for separation must be supported by documentation confirming the existence of the physical or mental condition. Members may be separated for physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability sufficiently severe that the Soldier's ability to effectively perform military duties is significantly impaired. A Soldier being separated under this section will be awarded a character of service of honorable, under honorable conditions, or an entry- level separation. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, the advisory opinion and published DoD guidance for consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The Board considered her service record, medical diagnoses, the reason for her separation and the conclusion of the medical advising official. The Board concurred with the advisory conclusion - that the applicant’s did not have a condition requiring Disability Evaluation System processing. After a thorough review, the Board determined there was sufficient evidence to conclude she did not have a personality disorder at separation and a change to the narrative reason for her separation was required. 2. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that partial relief was warranted. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : :X :X :X 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 amending the applicant’s DD Form 214 for the period of service ending 24 June 2005 as follows: a. Enter in item 25 (Separation Authority) - “AR 635-200, PARA 5-17.” b. Enter in item 26 (Separation Code) – “JFV”. b. Enter in item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – “Other designated physical or mental conditions”. 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 a disability separation or retirement. 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. 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. 2. 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. 3. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1201, provides for the physical disability retirement of a member who has at least 20 years of service or a disability rating of at least 30 percent. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1203, provides for the physical disability separation of a member who has less than 20 years of service and a disability rating of less than 30 percent. 4. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. 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. b. Paragraph 5-17 states a service member may be separated for other designated physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability that potentially interfere with assignment to or performance of duty. A recommendation for separation must be supported by documentation confirming the existence of the physical or mental condition. Members may be separated for physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability sufficiently severe that the Soldier's ability to effectively perform military duties is significantly impaired. A Soldier being separated under this section will be awarded a character of service of honorable, under honorable conditions, or an entry- level separation. 5. Title 38, U.S. Code, sections 1110 and 1131, permits the VA to award compensation for disabilities that were incurred in or aggravated by active military service. However, an award of a higher VA rating does not establish error or injustice on the part of the Army. The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time of discharge which disqualify the Soldier from further military service. The VA does not have the authority or responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service. The VA awards disability ratings to veterans for service-connected conditions, including those conditions detected after discharge, to compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability. These two government agencies operate under different policies. 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170000178 4 1