ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 23 May 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170003399 APPLICANT REQUESTS: a change in the narrative reason for separation from personality disorder to medical APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Two pages from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regarding the award of compensation for service connected conditions * A memorandum regarding a 31 August 2006 inpatient hospitalization of applicant while still on active duty 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. Applicant states the narrative reason for separation at discharge was listed as “personality disorder”, but he was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) while in service and has since been granted service-connected disability compensation by the VA. His reason for separation should be medical. 3. A review of the applicant’s service record shows: a. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 July 2000 and was trained as a 13B (Cannon Crewmember). b. He was deployed to Iraq from 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004 and again from 15 January 2006 to 5 August 2006. c. He was promoted to the rank/grade of sergeant/E-5 on 1 July 2006. d. On 31 August 2006, applicant was admitted into the inpatient psychiatric unit at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center (LRMC), due to agitation and expressions of suicidal ideation and intent. The evaluation noted that he appeared to be at significant risk of suicide. e. On 6 September 2006, a psychiatrist at LRMC evaluated the applicant. The psychiatrist noted that the applicant had no previous history of mental health treatment, no history of suicide attempts and that his thoughts of suicide had resolved, as a result of his treatment, and that he no longer desired to continue on active duty. He was diagnosed with a personality disorder. He met retention standards. However, his personality disorder met the criteria for administrative separation. f. On 13 September 2006 his command initiated separation action under Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, Chapter 5-13, personality disorder based on the above diagnosis. g. On 14 September 2006 he consulted with defense counsel and waived his right to appear before an administrative separation board. h. On 21 September 2006 he was separated under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 5-13, was approved. i. The applicant was discharged on 4 October 2006. He completed 6 years, 2 months, and 24 days of net active service this period. His service was characterized as “honorable.” He was separated under the authority of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-13 with the narrative reason for separation being “personality disorder.” The separation code was “JFX” and the reentry code was “3.” He had no lost time. He was given separation pay in the amount of $8,185.32. He was awarded or authorized the: * Army Commendation Medal * Army Achievement Medal (6th award) * Army Good Conduct Medal (2nd award) * National Defense Service Medal * Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal * Global War on Terrorism Service Medal * Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon * Army Service Ribbon * Overseas Service Ribbon 4. On 23 February 2018, a staff psychiatrist at the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) rendered an advisory opinion in this case. The opinion states: a. On 25 August 2006, the applicant was seen by Behavioral Health and diagnosed with Chronic PTSD, due to “heavy trauma” suffered in two tours in Iraq. He was started on an anti-depressant to which he responded well. On 31 August 2006, the applicant reported that his unit wanted to send him back to Iraq and that his commander felt he could be treated downrange. The applicant reported feeling powerless and hopeless with suicidal ideation. At that point, a diagnosis of Adjustment Disorder with Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct was added to his pre-existing Chronic PTSD diagnosis. b. On 18 September 2006, applicant’s psychiatrist stated that applicant was “calmer, feeling better. He is proceeding with Chapter discharge.” His diagnosis remained Chronic PTSD. A February 2007 psychiatry note indicated the applicant had returned to Germany and was working at the Commissary, and had requested a refill of his anti-depressant. c. On 12 May 2007, the applicant was evaluated by a German neurologist. After performing the patient exam and several diagnostic tests, the neurologist concluded that examinations “showed a totally normal result by neurologically and psychiatrically. There was no indication of a personality disturbance or a psychiatric disturbance which might give rise to aggressive outburst. There is no recommendation for any treatment.” d. In the opinion of the ARBA psychiatrist, there is no indication that the applicant failed to meet medical retention standards in accordance with AR 40-501. e. In the opinion of the ARBA psychiatrist, applicant’s contention that he did not have a personality disorder has merit. Personality disorders are long-standing ingrained patterns of behavior that lead to distress or impairment. They do not come and go at will. A review of applicant’s military records show he performed well during his first five years in the Army. He was well-respected and felt to be an excellent leader. He had no history of disciplinary or legal difficulties. His history does not support the diagnosis of personality disorder. It does support his diagnosis of PTSD and mild Traumatic Brain Injury, two conditions which can, at times, present with behavior which can be mistaken for a personality disorder. 5. The applicant did not submit comments in response to the above summarized medical advisory opinion. 6. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition and his service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board determined that partial relief was warranted. Based upon the documentary evidence presented by the applicant and found within the military service record, the Board found insufficient evidence to show an error or injustice. However, to limit the stigma that the applicant may face with his current narrative reason for separation, the Board determined that granting a form of clemency by changing the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority. 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: 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 a DD Form 214 showing his narrative reason for separation as “Secretarial Authority”. 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—Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), in effect at the time, prescribes the policies and procedures for the administrative separation of all enlisted Soldiers serving on active duty in the Active Army. a. Paragraph 5-3, “Secretarial plenary authority” permits the exercise of the Secretary of the Army’s prerogative to separate a Soldier when no other provision of the regulation applies and early separation is clearly in the best interest of the Army. It is normally exercised on a case by case basis. a. Paragraph 5-13, “Separation because of personality disorder”, states, in pertinent part, that a Soldier may be separated for personality disorder (not amounting to disability) that interferes with assignment or with performance of duty. The condition is a deeply ingrained maladaptive pattern of behavior of long duration that interferes with the Soldier’s ability to perform duty. Combat exhaustion and other acute situational maladjustments are specifically excepted. The diagnosis must be made by a psychiatrist or doctoral-level clinical psychologist. The service of a Soldier separated per this paragraph will be characterized as honorable. 3. AR 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) governs medical fitness standards for retention and separation, including retirement. Chapter 3 of the regulation gives the various medical conditions and physical defects which may render a Soldier unfit for further military service. 4. 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. a. Paragraph 3-1 states that 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. b. Appendix C-13b states the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) makes its own decisions concerning entitlement to disability compensation and rating based on the statutes and regulations which govern its operations. The VA is not bound by decisions of the Army; and likewise, the Army is not bound by VA decisions. The Army disability system must first determine whether a Soldier is physically unfit . . . and is restricted to rating only those conditions which are unfitting or contribute to unfitness. The VA may rate any service-connected disability. 5. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations. Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence. BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the type of court-martial. However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice. This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority. In determining whether to grant relief based on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was committed, and uniformity of punishment. Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for the revised reason or had the upgraded service character. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20170003399 4 1