ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS BOARD DATE: 24 June 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170001825 APPLICANT REQUESTS: The narrative reason for separation of personality disorder be changed to reflect his service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * Online DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) Decision * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * Department of Veterans Affairs Rating Decision * Self-Authored Letter to SSG P_____ * Self-Authored Journals * Self-Authored Statement FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code (USC), section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states: a. He received a PTSD diagnosis from the Veterans Administration (VA). b. He was not screened for PTSD prior to his proceedings for discharge, and there was no documentation to substantiate the mental status evaluation diagnosing him with personality disorder, NOS (not otherwise specified) under Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM IV). c. DSM-V (fifth edition) excludes the NOS designation and requires personality disorders have a specific trait of any named personality disorders. He states, therefore, the diagnosis was merely used as a loophole not requiring further screening or treatment – a requirement that was instituted later on. 3. The applicant provides his: a. Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) rating decision that shows the DVA established service connection for PTSD associated with combat duty, and granted a disability evaluation rating of 50 percent effective from 20 October 2010. b. Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) in Docket Number AR20120003159 on 30 May 2012 that shows: * he contended he never had a personality disorder and requested a change to the narrative reason for separation on the DD Form 214 to reflect his service connected disability * the ADRB determined there was insufficient evidence in the record, nor had he produced sufficient evidence, to support the contention he was incorrectly diagnosed with a personality disorder, and denied the request upon finding the reason for discharge and characterization of service were both proper and equitable c. Personal statement to support his request for correction where he states: * due to the events documented in his disability rating decision and prior application to the ADRB, he believes his discharge was unjust * he was experiencing PTSD symptoms in 2004 prior to deployment, and had an appointment with a psychologist in 2005 while deployed in Afghanistan due to exacerbation of the condition * he was screened for PTSD while separating his duty station but the documents did not make their way into his file 4. A review of his service records show: a. On 21 May 2004, he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA). b. Orders 124-006, published by the Vincenza Transition Center, on 4 May 2005, show he was reassigned to the Vicenza transition center for discharge. c. His separation packet is not available for review. However, his service record contains a DD Form 214 that show she was honorably discharged from active duty on 17 May 2005, after having completed 11 months and 27 days of active service. This form shows: * the authority for separation as paragraph 5-13, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) * the narrative reason for separation is personality disorder * the separation code is JFX and the Reentry (RE) Code 3 5. On 28 April 2017, the ADRB psychologist rendered an advisory opinion in the processing of this case. He opined: a. The applicant’s medical records do, at the time of discharge, reasonably support him having a boardable medical condition for that period, and that he did meet mental- health standards that were applicable to his era of service. b. The applicant’s mental health conditions were considered at the time of his discharge, as it was a mental health condition that led to his discharge after an examination by a licensed provider. Review of available documentation did not find sufficient evidence of mental-health considerations that show his personality disorder diagnosis was in error. 6. On 2 May 2017, the advisory opinion was forwarded to the applicant for acknowledgement and/or response. 7. On 14 June 2017, the applicant submitted a self-authored 5 page rebuttal in response to the advisory opinion where he states: a. He informed his psychologist of his intent to submit an application as a conscientious objector, which the psychologist indicated that would be too much paperwork and he had an easier way. His timeline shows he was diagnosed with an “other than specified” personality disorder, and notes there’s no such thing but it was good enough for him to get an honorable discharge. He never heard of a personality disorder nor PTSD and did not understand what was being done. The applicant agreed to his method under duress without being informed of the method or consequences. b. He assembled a series of events for his PTSD from his hand-written journal for his original PTSD claim, which he shows as: * periodic nightmares about an incident to this day where he witnessed a female Soldier fall and impact the ground during airborne school when her parachute failed to fully deploy * videos of torture were part of his medic training, which at the time, instructors presented them in a way that suggested they were not authorized * harassment by peers and immediate supervisors at home station and on deployment, which are documented in his self-authored letter to SSG P___ c. The practice of diagnosing Soldiers with PTSD as having a personality disorder is well documented, and once exposed, the Department of Defense (DoD) changed policy to review each case to rule out PTSD, which in effect shows: * current diagnostic methods no longer diagnose personality disorder, not otherwise specified, which means his discharge could not happen under today’s policies and therefore unjust * the lack of screening or treatment for PTSD prior to discharge made his discharge unjust * the reason for separation narrative was fraudulent, under duress, and would be disallowed under today’s policies, and the just thing would be to correct the discharge narrative to service connected PTSD d. His DVA records, up to a couple months ago, point to the fact he never had a personality disorder and instead does have PTSD. 8. Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations) in effect at the time, set forth the authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-13 (Separation due to personality disorder) states a member may be separated for personality disorder not amounting to disability that interferes with assignment to or performance of duty. 9. Army Regulation (AR) 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes prescribes the specific authorities (statutory or other directives), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the separation program designator (SPD) codes to be entered on DD Form 214. Paragraph 2-3 (Rules for separation program designator code control and usage) states the SPD code will be entered in block 26 of the DD Form 214 per AR 635-5 (Separation Documents) and this regulation. The narrative reason for separation will be entered in block 28 of the DD Form 214 exactly as listed and no deviation is authorized. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board determined that relief was not warranted. Based upon the medical advisory’s finding that the available documentation did not find sufficient evidence of mental-health considerations that show his personality disorder diagnosis was in error, the Board concluded that there was insufficient evidence to show that an error or injustice was present which would warrant making a change to the narrative reason of separation as it is currently reflected on the applicant’s DD Form 214. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : X :X :X DENY APPLICATION 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. 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. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, USC, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three 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 three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations) in effect at the time, set forth the authority and provisions governing the separation of enlisted personnel prior to the expiration of terms of service (ETS), and the criteria governing issues of honorable, general, and under other than honorable conditions discharge certificates. a. Chapter 5 (Separation for Convenience of the Government) sets forth the conditions under which enlisted personnel may be discharged, released from active duty or active duty for training, or released from military control, for the convenience of the government. b. Paragraph 5-13 (Separation because of personality disorder) states a 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 (physician trained in psychiatry and psychiatric diagnosis) and described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM III) of Mental Disorders. This condition is a deeply ingrained, maladaptive pattern of behavior of long duration which interferes with the member’s ability to perform duty, and is authorized only if the diagnosis concludes the disorder is so severe that the member’s ability to function effectively in the military environment is significantly impaired. 3. AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), in effect at the time, set forth the policies for the disposition of Soldiers found unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his/her office, grade, rank, or rating. 4. AR 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes prescribes the specific authorities (statutory or other directives), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on DD Form 214: a. Paragraph 2-3 (Rules for separation program designator code control and usage) states the SPD code will be entered in block 26 of the DD Form 214 per AR 635-5 (Separation Documents) and this regulation. The narrative reason for separation will be entered in block 28 of the DD Form 214 exactly as listed and no deviation is authorized. b. Paragraph 2-6 (Separation program designators applicable to enlisted personnel) includes table 2-3 which lists the SPD codes in alphabetical order, the narrative reason, and the regulatory authority. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170001825 4 1