ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 November 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180016265 APPLICANT REQUESTS: reconsideration of his previous requests for a change of his narrative reason for discharge from an honorable discharge due to unsuitability to a medical discharge. The applicant also requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to reflect his pay grade as E-4. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record) * Personal Statement * Statement from National Service Officer Supervisor with the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) * Previous ABCMR Case (1 page) * Medical Advisory from ABCMR (2 pages) * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) * List of illnesses (unsigned) * Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Rating Decision * Medical documents FACTS: 1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AC82-09124, dated 16 February 1983 and AR20160002489, dated 9 November 2017. 2. The applicant states, in part: a. He was forced to take an administrative discharge when he was diagnosed with mixed personality disorder in November 1980. He should have been granted a medical discharge. VA had upgraded his entitlement to an increased rating for adjustment disorder to include post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). He applied to ABCMR for an upgrade in 1983; however, he was denied due to the statute of limitations. He applied again in November 2017, and the record of proceedings stated he should have received a medical discharge. b. He was normal when he went into the Army. He was put under extreme daily pressure from his chain of command and became ill and suffered a nervous breakdown. He was misled by his chain of command who informed him the quickest way out of the Army was to be administratively separated. He was sick and not in his right state of mind when he was offered an administrative discharge. He waived his rights after being advised by an Army lawyer who worked for the government. He is still suffering from mental illness, PTSD, dysphoric brain injury, trauma due to stress, and bipolar disorder as diagnosed by Dr. N. He is simply requesting this gross injustice be corrected and narrative reason be changed to reflect a medical discharge. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 January 1979. 3. His records contain: a. A Standard Form 502 (Clinical Records – Narrative Summary) stating he was admitted to the hospital on 30 October 1980 for being unhappy with his assignment and that fact he had received the bulk of the work because he was the "new man." During his hospitalization, he was treated with group and milieu therapy and no medications. He was discharged on 19 December 1980. b. A Certificate of Psychiatric Evaluation, dated 24 November 1980, stating he was diagnosed with a mixed personality disorder, line of duty: No. The examining psychiatrist found the applicant met the retention standards prescribed in chapter 3, Army Regulation (AR) 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) and there was no psychiatric disease or defect that warranted disposition through medical channels. He recommended the applicant be administratively separated from the military under the provisions of AR 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Separations), chapter 13. 4. On 4 December 1980, after consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation. He also acknowledged he could receive a general or an under other than honorable conditions discharge and the results of the receipt of either discharge. He waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 5. After consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation. He also acknowledged he could receive a general or an under other than honorable conditions discharge and the results of the receipt of either discharge. He waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 9. On 17 December 1981, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge and directed the issuance of an honorable discharge. 10. He was honorably discharged in pay grade E-3 on 19 December 1980. His DD Form 214 show he was credited with 1 year, 10 months, and 20 days of active service. His DD Form 214 lists in: * Item 25 (Separation Authority) – Paragraph 13-4b, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Separations) * Item 26 (Separation Code) – "JMB" * Item 28 – Unsuitability-Personality Disorder 10. The applicant's record is void of evidence showing he was promoted to or served as a specialist/E-4. 11. There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statute of limitation for a change the narrative reason for his discharge. 12. On 16 February 1983, ABCMR denied his petition for a change of his honorable discharge due to physical disability. The Board determined that based on a 1983 Surgeon General's opinion and his separation physical examination, it appeared there was no reason for the applicant's separation for medical reasons. 13. On 28 November 2017, ABCMR denied his request for reconsideration of the Board's earlier decision. 14. On 3 October 2019, the ABCMR obtained an advisory opinion from a Clinical Psychologist with Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA), who states, in part, the applicant met medical retention standards at the time of separation; he was not eligible for a medical retirement. Although the applicant carried a Personality Disorder diagnosis in- and post-service, a personality disorder is not a disability or subject to a medical separation. The applicant's in- and post-service diagnosis of Borderline Intellectual functioning could have contributed to the poor coping and behavioral difficulties leading to his diagnosis, discharge, and current service connected condition; however an intellectual deficit is not eligible for a medical separation. In short, documentation does not support the applicant's request for medical retirement. Records do support changing his discharge to a 5-17, Condition not a disability. A copy of the complete medical advisory was provided to the Board for their review and consideration. 12. On 17 October 2019, the applicant was provided a copy of the opinion and given the opportunity for comment or rebuttal. He did not respond. 13. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 13-4b provided for separation due to personality disorder. When a Soldier did not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in military training or improve his conduct and work efficiency, the commander was to initiate separation action prior to the Soldier's expiration of his term of service 14. Army Regulation 40-501 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. 15. Army Regulation 635-40 sets for the policies for the disposition of Soldiers found unfit because of physical disability reasonably to perform the duties of his/her office, grade, rank, or rating. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found the requested relief is not warranted. 2. The Board found no evidence in the available records indicating the applicant was advanced to pay grade E-4 during his period of active duty service. In the absence of an official promotion instrument, i.e., orders or a comparable document, advancing him to pay grade E-4, the Board determined a preponderance of the evidence indicates the pay grade recorded on his DD Form 214 is correct. 3. The Board carefully considered the applicant's request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, and the review and conclusions of the medical advising official based on available medical records. The Board found insufficient evidence to support a recommendation to change the reason for his discharge. The Board agreed that his personality disorder diagnosis was not a basis for referring him for assessment for a possible medical discharge. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined the reason for his separation was not in error or unjust. 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. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 13-4b provided for separation due to personality disorder. When a Soldier did not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in military training or improve his conduct and work efficiency, the commander was to initiate separation action prior to the Soldier's expiration of his term of service. Discharge for personality disorder required a diagnosis by a psychiatrist based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-II) of Mental Disorders, International Classification of Diseases and Injuries. The DSM-II criterion for personality disorder included a deeply ingrained, maladaptive pattern of behavior of a long duration interfering with an individual's ability to adapt and work. From an Army medical viewpoint, every Soldier diagnosed as having a personality disorder was capable of controlling his actions. Finally, when separation for unsuitability based on personality disorder was warranted, an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual’s entire record. 2. Army Regulation 40-501 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. 3. Army Regulation 635-40 sets for the policies for the disposition of Soldiers found unfit because of physical disability reasonably to perform the duties of his/her office, grade, rank, or rating. The regulation states: a. The DES assessment process involves two distinct stages: the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and the Physical Evaluation Board (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 are either separated from the military or are permanently retired, depending on the severity of the disability and length of military service. b. Paragraph 3-1 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. 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. c. Paragraph 3-2b (processing for separation or retirement from active duty) 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 they can no longer continue to reasonably perform because of a physical disability incurred or aggravated in service. When a Soldier is being processed for separation or retirement for reasons other than physical disability, continued performance of assigned duty commensurate with his or her rank or grade until the Soldier is scheduled for separation or retirement, creates a presumption that the Soldier is fit. The presumption of fitness may be overcome if the evidence establishes that— (1) The Soldier was, in fact, physically unable to perform adequately the duties of his or her office, grade, rank or rating for a period of time because of disability. There must be a causative relationship between the less than adequate duty performance and the unfitting medical condition or conditions. (2) An acute, grave illness or injury or other significant deterioration of the Soldier’s physical condition occurred immediately prior to, or coincident with processing for separation or retirement for reasons other than physical disability and which rendered the Soldier unfit for further duty. 4. Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), in effect at the time, established the Army Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) according to the provisions of Title 10, U. S. Code, Chapter 61, and DOD Directive 1332.18. It set forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier was unfit because of physical disability to reasonably perform the duties of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating. a. If a Soldier was found unfit because of physical disability, the regulation provided for disposition of the Soldier according to applicable laws and regulations. b. Soldiers were referred into the PDES when it was determined that they did not meet physical standards for enlistment, appointment and/or induction in accordance with chapter 2 of AR 40-501, or they no longer met medical retention standards in accordance with chapter 3, AR 40-501. 5. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes (SPD)), in effect at the time, provided the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It stated that the SPD code "JMB" was the appropriate code to assign Soldiers separating under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-4b, due to unsuitability-personality disorders. NOTHING FOLLOWS ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180016265 5 1