IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 28 September 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20190008649 APPLICANT REQUESTS: The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request to change the reason for his discharge from personality disorder to disability retirement. APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: .Two Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) letters .Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation doctor's letter .VA Benefits Authorization .Board of Veterans' Appeals Decision .Two Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) emails .DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) .Extract from Air Force Instruction (AFI) 36-3001 .Extract from applicant's civilian medical records (16 pages) .Missouri Army National Guard (MOARNG) Basic Training Certificate .Letter of Commendation .Department of the Army (DA) Certificate of Achievement .U.S. Army Transportation School Traffic Management Coordinator Course –71N10 Course Completion Certificate .DA Certificate of Training – Combat Engineer Training-MOS (militaryoccupational specialty) 12B10 .MOARNG Honorable Discharge Certificate .Regular Army Honorable Discharge Certificate FACTS: 1.Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in theprevious consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction ofMilitary Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20060000813 on 17October 2006. 2.The applicant states he was injured during field training exercises (FTX) conductedat Fort Story, VA in 1986; as a result of his injuries, a military doctor directed theapplicant not participate in any activities involving marching, lifting, and/or physicaltraining (PT); in addition, the applicant was to only perform half-day light duty in theoffice. A staff sergeant (SSG) subsequently gave the applicant an illegal order when hedirected the applicant to carry a flag while marching, despite being reminded by the applicant of the doctor's order not to march, lift objects, or participate in PT; the SSG responded he did not care and demanded the applicant to take the flag anyway. When, after having carried the flag for two blocks, the applicant could no longer continue, the SSG wrote him up, claiming the applicant had disobeyed his order; the applicant asserts the SSG singled him out for punishment. The applicant further contends, contrary to Army regulations, his chain of command discharged him rather than assigning him to the medical battalion at Fort Eustis, VA, where he could have undergone a medical evaluation board (MEB). The applicant insists, while he was still on active duty, his orthopedic injuries caused him to incur mental depression/Dysthymia; he additionally asserts no one offered him the guidance he required to request a medical retirement prior to his discharge in August 1987. The applicant offers additional details and contentions, stating, in effect: a.VA medical center evaluations, conducted in 1997 and 1998, determined theapplicant's Dysthymia resulted from the neck and upper/lower back injuries he sustained during 1986 FTXs, and which were subsequently aggravated by re-injury in 1987. Based on these findings, the VA awarded him a 100 percent disability rating and began sending him disability compensation. The applicant maintains he did not have a personality disorder; his only mental issue was his injury-induced Dysthymia. b.The applicant states he submitted sworn testimony to the Board of Veterans'Appeals that outlined his arguments as to why his orthopedic injuries were service-connected; the applicant includes the five pages of arguments, made before the Board of Veterans' Appeals, and requests the ABCMR to adopt the "same U.S.C. regulations" he has cited. 3.The applicant provides two VA letters, which reflect the award of a 100 percentdisability rating; a VA benefits authorization; a civilian orthopedic doctor's assessment ofthe applicant's low back pain; and an extract from AFI 36-3001 that indicates thebenefits to which Veterans and their dependents are entitled. The applicant alsosubmits official military personnel file documents showing the completion of MOStraining and recognition for outstanding duty performance, and he offers civilian medicalrecords, which detail treatments for his low back pain. The applicant additionallyincludes the results of his March 2018 appellate action before the Board of Veterans'Appeals: a.The board determined the applicant's low back and cervical spine disabilitieswere service-connected. b.While the board noted the applicant's military medical records did not specificallyshow he had incurred his back injury during an FTX, the board nonetheless accepted the applicant's version of events, as well as a civilian orthopedic doctor's assessment of the applicant's conditions. As a result, the board concluded the evidence was "at least in equipoise" and (per Title 38 (Veterans Benefits), Section 5107(b) (Benefit of the Doubt) found in the applicant's favor. The Board of Veterans' Appeals opinion made no mention of any behavioral health issues being associated with the applicant's orthopedic conditions. 4.The applicant's service records show: a.After serving in the MOARNG for 1 year and 25 days, the applicant enlisted intothe Regular Army for a 4-year term on 19 February 1986. Following the completion of advanced individual training, orders transferred the applicant to Fort Story, and he arrived on 9 April 1986. Effective 1 September 1986, the applicant's chain of command promoted him to private first class (PFC)/E-3. b.On 18 September 1986, the applicant's supervisor (SSG M__) wrote a statementin which he described the applicant's behavior during the unit's preparation for a readiness exercise. (1)SSG M__ noted, each time the workload got demanding, the applicant woulddisappear. At one point, the applicant had asked for time off to purchase an insurance policy, and SSG M__ agreed; when, on the next day, the applicant again asked to be released (claiming he had been unable to complete the insurance transaction due to missing paperwork), SSG M__ told him no. The SSG later learned, after he (SSG M__) had left the area, the applicant made the same request to Sergeant First Class (SFC) P__, and, not knowing the background, SFC P__ granted the applicant's request. (2)On 18 September 1986, the applicant's section had to move files andequipment to a remote site as part of the readiness exercise; shortly after arriving at the remote site, the applicant asked to go to the latrine. After waiting an extended period for the applicant's return, SSG M__ found the applicant in the latrine reading a newspaper; after acting flustered, the applicant returned to work. Later, when the alert began, the applicant started "running at the mouth" about "being a man"; complaining about military (expletive); and stating "he didn't need this (expletive)." SSG M__ let the applicant complain because he thought the applicant was just venting, but when the applicant stopped working, SSG M__ became frustrated and told him to "shut up" and get back to work. When SFC P__ returned to the area, SFC P__ gave the applicant a "very 'sound, professional chewing out.'" (3)SSG M__ then took the applicant outside, along with another PFC who wassenior to the applicant by time-in-grade; SSG M__ directed the applicant to report to the first sergeant (1SG) and declare, word-for-word, that he (the applicant) was a "worthless Soldier," who, while other Soldiers were working, chose to shirk his responsibilities by reading a newspaper in the latrine. Later in the afternoon, the applicant's team returned to the off-site location, but after only an hour of work, the applicant asked to leave so he could call his mother, stating she was in the hospital. (4)SSG M__ recommended the applicant's referral for a psychiatric evaluation,opining the applicant might be suffering from situational stress. SSG M__ cited the following five factors; the applicant's: .conflicts with other Soldiers (noting these Soldiers had already writtenstatements about the applicant and provided them to the 1SG) .frequent expressions of concern about his mother's health (SSG M__ hadrecommended compassionate reassignment, hardship discharge, and/orleave) .ongoing complaints about threats to his manhood, made whenever theapplicant was being required to fulfill his Soldierly responsibilities .deteriorating attitude, following his promotion to PFC .(most recently) shirking of his duties c. On 15 October 1986, a Community Mental Health Service (CMHS) psychiatrist determined the applicant's mental status was within normal limits, and that he showed no sign of mental disease; however, the applicant's work performance had been deteriorating and his fellow Soldiers had also noted a change in the applicant's behavior. The psychiatrist indicated the applicant's leadership should consider the applicant's administrative separation, in view of the psychiatrist's observation that the applicant had a "Personality Disorder of a Mixed Type," as manifested by "seclusiveness," intentional inefficiency, an inability to adjust socially or emotionally to military life, and resentment at not being able to further his education. d. Between December 1986 and April 1987, using DA Forms 4856 (General Counseling Form), the applicant's NCO leadership counseled the applicant three times; the NCOs addressed the applicant's Skill Qualification Test failure, his tardiness to a formation, and his absence from two PT formations. e. On 1 May 1987, the applicant's unit reported him as absent without leave(AWOL); the applicant returned to military control on 5 May 1987 after having been apprehended at Fort Leonard Wood, MO. On 20 May 1987, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for AWOL from 1 until 5 May 1987 (4 days); punishment included reduction from PFC to private (PV2)/E-2. On 25 June 1987, the applicant accepted NJP for failing to be at a PT formation on 16 June 1987 and for willfully disobeying SSG C__'s order to take the company flag to the front of the company on 24 June 1987. f. On 16 July 1987, the applicant underwent a separation physical. On a Standard Form (SF) 93 (Report of Medical History), the applicant claimed he was in good health, and he did not check "Yes," for any of the medical conditions listed; he also did not report any medical conditions in the comments section of the form. On an SF 88 (Report of Medical Examination), the examining physician reflected the applicant's mild Pes Planus and noted the applicant should be evaluated for possible exposure to Hepatitis B; no other medical conditions were identified and the physician affirmed the applicant was qualified for separation. g.On 21 July 1987, the same CMHS psychiatrist who had previously evaluated theapplicant reaffirmed the earlier Personality Disorder diagnosis and reiterated his recommendation for administrative separation. h.On or about 17 August 1987, the applicant's commander advised him in writing ofhis intent to separate the applicant under paragraph 5-13 (Separation Because of Personality Disorder), Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel); the commander's stated reason was the applicant's personality disorder diagnosis. On 17 August 1987, the applicant signed a written acknowledgement wherein he affirmed he had been afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel, but specifically declined counsel; the applicant further indicated he would not be submitting statements in his own behalf. i.On 24 August 1987, the separation authority approved the commander'srecommendation and directed the applicant's honorable discharge; on 26 August 1987, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he completed 1 year, 6 months, and 4 days of his 4-year enlistment contract, with 4 days of lost time; he was awarded or authorized the Army Service Ribbon and two marksmanship qualification badges. The DD Form 214 additionally reflected the separation authority as AR 635-200, paragraph 5-13; the narrative reason for separation was personality disorder; and the reenlistment code indicated the applicant required a waiver to reenlist. j.On or about 31 December 2005, the applicant petitioned the ABCMR, requestinga disability retirement. The applicant argued his discharge was wrongful because he had not been afforded proper medical care for his Dysthymia, chronic depression, aggravated schizoid disorder, Hepatitis B, and back injury. As a result of these conditions, the applicant had been unable to hold a job following his separation and was homeless; in addition, he claimed he had been denied reentry into the Army. He noted the VA later awarded him a 100 percent disability rating. (1)Through counsel, the applicant essentially maintained, at the time of hisdischarge, the applicant's unit had persuaded him to cooperate with their separation action rather than pursuing a medical discharge/retirement. The applicant accepted the separation action because he was experiencing physical and mental abuse and was in fear of his life; his unit additionally led him to believe he could later reapply for and reenter the military with a waiver. Counsel argued the applicant should be entitled to a disability retirement based on his mental condition, back injury, and chronic Hepatitis. (2)The applicant provided a 15-page affidavit, in which he attributed his "mentalproblems" to the harassment, ridicule, abuse, and physical violence inflicted on him by his fellow Soldiers. Following a successful term in the MOARNG, the applicant had enlisted into Regular Army, and he did very well during his first 6 or 7 months of active duty; his troubles began, however, after his promotion to PFC and subsequent assignment to a barracks room with three other Soldiers (all of whom were black, like the applicant). (a)One of the Soldiers started bringing a girl to the room, and this Soldier wouldplay loud music, drink and smoke, and then allow the girl to remain for the night; when the applicant complained, the other roommates took the Soldier's side. The applicant's roommates then began to taunt and threaten the applicant. After this, the applicant's roommates told all of their friends about the applicant's complaint and word spread throughout the platoon; the applicant soon became the laughingstock of the company. (b)In response to what his roommates were doing, the applicant's leadershipmoved him to another barracks. Unfortunately, this made no difference because his ex-roommates and their friends were still around; whenever they found the applicant alone, they would harass, taunt, and physically attack him. At one point, someone broke the windows in his car and put sugar in the gas tank; the sugar ruined the engine, and it cost a lot of money to replace it. (c)The applicant began to do things that some considered so different fromnormal conduct that they thought him strange and frightening: he would sit at the side of his bed and talk out loud to himself; he also had trouble sleeping, and, when he did sleep, he would have nightmares about war. In addition, because he was afraid of his roommates, he would take his sleeping bag and sleep outside. The applicant's NCOs thought the applicant was having mental problems, so they recommended the applicant undergo a psychiatric evaluation. The psychiatrist told the applicant he was depressed because of the stress he was experiencing; however, the psychiatrist failed to mention the applicant's depression in the two mental status reports he prepared. (d)As the situation worsened, the applicant decided to go AWOL; he went backto Fort Leonard Wood because that was where he had taken basic combat training, and he still had a good relationship with the people there. He went to the command headquarters and told them what was happening; they, in turn, sent him to the personnel office, the military police, and the Red Cross. The people at Fort Leonard Wood told the applicant his Fort Story chain of command would have to resolve the matter, and the Red Cross gave him a ticket to return to his unit. When he got back to Fort Story, the applicant's commander said he had wondered what had happened to the applicant because the applicant was one of his better Soldiers; a master sergeant explained to the commander that some of the unit's Soldiers had been picking on the applicant, and this was why he had moved the applicant to another barracks. The applicant subsequently accepted NJP for his period of AWOL. (e)By mid-July, things had gotten so bad that the applicant told his chain ofcommand he could no longer handle the stress; "they told me the quickest way I could get out was to discharge me for personality disorder." No one in the unit mentioned the applicant's right to seek an MEB, despite being fully aware that the applicant was constantly talking to himself, was continually waking up in the night because of nightmares, and was often sleeping outside in his sleeping bag to avoid the other Soldiers. (f)With regard to the applicant's back injury, the applicant affirmed he initiallyinjured his back during a field training exercise; he fell into a gorge while training on night goggles. He first saw a doctor there in the field, and this doctor put the applicant on light duty; the applicant later went to the clinic because his back continued to bother him. The applicant provided a chronology of the medical care he had received for his back, which showed clinic visits between January and April 1987. (g)After addressing his exposure to Hepatitis B and giving a chronology oftreatment, the applicant moved on to describing his efforts in 1990 to reenlist. He stated, because he had been discharged due to a personality disorder, a psychologist had to screen him, and this psychologist diagnosed the applicant with Dysthymic Disorder; that diagnosis kept him from reentering the military. After years of suffering from his medical conditions, the VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) finally helped him file a claim with the VA, and the applicant eventually received a 100 percent disability rating for Dysthymia. The applicant provided 11 arguments as to why he believed his unit and the Army doctors had "railroaded" him out of the Army. (3)Counsel provided 15 exhibits, which included documents from the applicant'sOMPF, clinic reports, and transcripts from a VA hearing. Also submitted were the 1990 psychological evaluation, cited by the applicant in his affidavit, and the VA's psychiatric Compensation and Pension (C&P) examination. (a)The military medical records provided by the applicant showed he was firstseen for body/back pain on 14 January 1987, at which time the doctor prescribed light duty (the entry did not mention a back injury resulting from a fall into a gorge during an FTX); on 21 January 1987, the applicant returned complaining of back pain, and a doctor prescribed a pain medication and gave the applicant a 3-day temporary physical profile for no PT and no lifting objects over 20 pounds. Follow-up visits continued until 2 February 1987, when the doctor declared the applicant's back pain had been resolved. On 1 April 1987, the applicant returned to the medical clinic complaining of back pain; on 9 April 1987, the applicant was seen for a follow-up visit and treated with pain medications and a heating pad, after which there were no more entries pertaining to back pain. The military medical records provided by the applicant did not reflect that medical authority issued a permanent physical profile for any of the applicant's medical conditions. (b)On 7 December 1990, a civilian psychologist evaluated by the applicant atthe MOARNG's request; the psychologist administered a series of psychological tests and interviewed the applicant. The psychologist opined, although the applicant represented himself well and minimized any current life difficulties, he nonetheless remained at risk for developing serious problems, should he be allowed to reenlist. The applicant's ability to sustain any long-term commitments was poor, and he was likely to again come into conflict with superiors, should his duty performance fail to meet standards. The applicant's "defensive structure" was quite intact and not likely to change. The psychologist diagnosed the applicant with Dysthymic Disorder and Histrionic Personality Disorder with Anti-Social Traits. (c)Between August and September 1999, two VA doctors evaluated theapplicant as part of a VA C&P examination, conducted to determine the applicant's eligibility for VA disability compensation. On 30 August 1999, a VA doctor opined, given the applicant's family history of depression, the symptoms manifested by the applicant while on active duty were more reflective of "depressive symptomology"; the doctor wrote, "(The applicant) had a back ache. He was isolated from others and would withdraw with his sleeping bag away from the other men. He was sensitive to their criticism and felt alienated and felt sad, despondent." The doctor's diagnoses were Dysthymia and Schizoid Personality. On 14 September 1999, another VA doctor assessed the applicant and noted the applicant's claim that the military psychiatrist had admitted to him that he (the applicant) did not actually have a personality disorder, but, because no one liked him, a personality disorder diagnosis was the only way to get the applicant out of the military. The VA doctor affirmed the applicant met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition (DSM-IV) criteria for Dysthymia; however, the applicant's odd mannerism of talking to himself did not clearly fall under any specific personality disorder. The doctor stated, "It is more that he is slightly eccentric...It fits more into the category of an odd coping mechanism." The doctor concluded, "Since I cannot support a clear-cut personality disorder as a diagnosis, I cannot state that any personality behaviors he has now are new and separate from his symptoms during the military. It is unlikely, however, that, if he had a significant personality disorder, that he would have been able to function at all in the military, much less function for 2 years." k.On 17 October 2006, the Board denied the applicant's request after it determinedthe following: .The applicant's separation physical showed the applicant affirmed he was ingood health; there was no indication he had either psychiatric or orthopedicissues .The applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation while still on active duty; theArmy psychiatrist confirmed the applicant exhibited a personality disorder .There was no evidence the applicant had suffered discrimination orharassment while at Fort Story; on the contrary, the applicant's recordshowed he had been rapidly promoted; his self-destructive behaviors startedafter his promotion to PFC .The applicant filed his ABCMR petition after the expiration of the 3-yearstatutory time limit 5.The applicant contends his narrative reason for separation should be changed frompersonality disorder to a permanent disability retirement; he maintains he never had apersonality disorder and, instead, incurred the behavioral health condition of Dysthymiabecause of the neck and upper/lower back injuries he sustained while he was on activeduty. He asserts the onset of his orthopedic injuries occurred during FTXs conducted atFort Story in 1986, and he reinjured himself after complying with a SSG's illegal order tocarry a flag. The applicant maintains that VA linked his Dysthymia to his orthopedicinjuries and awarded him a 100 percent disability rating. a.The evidence of record shows the applicant was twice diagnosed with personalitydisorder by an Army psychiatrist; during the applicant's era of service, commanders were to initiate separation action against Soldiers with a personality disorder. (1)Separation was only authorized if the diagnosis showed the personalitydisorder was so severe, the Soldier's ability to function effectively in the military environment would be significantly impaired. In addition, the commander was not allowed to proceed with the separation action until he/she had formally counseled the Soldier as to his/her deficiencies and given the Soldier ample time to improve. (2)The regulation further stipulated that, before acting on the commander'sseparation recommendation, the separation authority had to first validate whether the evidence sufficiently supported discharge; if warranted, the separation authority approved the commander's recommendation and directed the Soldier's separation. The character of service normally assigned was an honorable discharge. b.The applicant's current version of events does not entirely align with what he hadclaimed in his previous ABCMR petition, in that he initially attributed his "mental problems" to the harassment, ridicule, abuse, and physical violence inflicted on him by his fellow Soldiers. The applicant additionally contends the VA determined his Dysthymia was the direct result of his service-connected neck/back injuries; however, while the applicant's VA C&P examination mentioned the applicant's back injury, the VA doctor primarily attributed the applicant's "depressive symptomology" to a family history of depression and the applicant's feelings of alienation from his fellow Soldiers. In addition, the Board of Veterans' Appeals opinion makes no mention of any behavioral health issues in its findings of service-connection for the applicant's neck/back injuries. c.Per the version of AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, orSeparation), in effect at the time, the mere presence-of an impairment was not sufficient to justify a finding of unfitness due physical disability. In each case, it was necessary to compare the nature and degree of physical disability present with the duty requirements of the Soldier, based on his/her rank, and with due consideration given to his/her availability for worldwide deployment under field conditions. The applicant claimed to have initially injured his back during an FTX in 1986 and re-injured his back as a result of an illegal order to carry a flag in 1987. (1)The medical records provided by the applicant with his initial ABCMRapplication showed an injury in January 1987 and the issuance of temporary profiles; an entry indicating the applicant's back pain had resolved in February 1987; and two additional back pain entries in April 1987, for which the treatment was a heating pad and pain medication. The medical records included no further entries regarding treatment for back pain. (2)On 25 June 1987, the applicant accepted NJP for willfully disobeying anNCO's order to carry a flag on 24 June 1987. (3)The applicant's documents did not indicate medical authority ever issued theapplicant a permanent physical profile for any orthopedic injuries, and his separation physical reflected no disabling conditions. d.With regard to the applicant's referencing his VA disability ratings to support hisrequest for permanent disability retirement: (1)The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at thetime of discharge, which disqualify the Soldier from further military service. The Army disability rating is to compensate the individual for the loss of a military career. The VA does not have authority or responsibility for determining physical fitness for military service. The VA may compensate the individual for loss of civilian employability. (2)Title 38, USC, Sections 1110 and 1131, permit the VA to awardcompensation for disabilities which were incurred in or aggravated by active military service. However, an award of a VA rating does not establish an error or injustice on the part of the Army. (3)Title 38, CFR, Part IV is the VA’s schedule for rating disabilities. The VAawards disability ratings to Veterans for service-connected conditions, including those conditions detected after discharge. As a result, the VA, operating under different policies, may award a disability rating where the Army did not find the member to be unfit to perform his duties. 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. e.In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition, hisservice record, and his statements in light of the published guidance on equity, injustice, or clemency. 6.Based on the applicant's submission of civilian medical records, and his claim ofDysthymia, linked to neck and upper/lower back injuries incurred while on active duty,the Army Review Board Agency medical staff provided a medical review for the Boardmembers. See the "MEDICAL REVIEW" section." MEDICAL REVIEW: 1.The Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supportingdocuments and the applicant's records in the VA's Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV). Due tothe age of the case, there were no records in Interactive Personnel Electronic RecordsManagement System (iPERMS), the Armed Forces Health Longitudinal TechnologyApplication (AHLTA), and Health Artifacts Image Management Solutions (HAIMS). Theapplicant indicated he sustained a back injury during field training maneuvers in 1986and then again in 1987 when asked to march and carry a flag. In addition, he alsocontends his neck condition is related to the back injury. And finally he reportedhepatitis B infection that was discovered while in service. The applicant submittedrecords of treatment during and after military service for review, the in-service visits aredetailed below. 2.Lumbar a.21Jan1987 USA Health Clinic for back pain, “no direct back trauma for 72 hours”.He was given a 3 day profile for no lifting over 20 pounds and no physical training b.26Jan1987 USA Health Clinic follow up visit for back pain. Further historyshowed that he had been lifting more lifting in the past week. There was mild tenderness and lumbar paravertebral musculature, negative straight leg testing c.02Feb1987 USA Health Clinic, second follow up visit for back pain. Improvementpresent. There was full range of motion on exam. No tenderness. Negative straight leg testing. Assessment: Resolved. Motrin as needed. d.01Apr1987 seen for back pain present for 2 days, no direct back trauma. Treatedwith Tylenol#2, Bengay, and heating pads. Return if pain persists. e.09Apr1987 seen for back pain follow up. No history of back trauma. Prescriptionprotocol for back pain. f.No specific back injury/trauma was reported. The reported history and examfindings did not trigger an order for films. There was good response to basic back care treatment (no need for further follow up visits after April), specialty services were not required (for example physical therapy and pain services). During the 16Jul1987 Report of Medical History, the applicant reported being in good health and he did not endorse any back or neck issues. The same provider saw the applicant for the back visits in Feb and Apr1987 as well as the separation exam. During the 16Jul1987 separation exam completed four and a half months after the last back visit, the examiner observed mild pes planus but no other orthopedic defects were noted. The examiner did recommend that the applicant be evaluated by Preventive Medicine because of his exposure to Hepatitis B. He was deemed qualified. 3.Hepatitis B a.14Jan1987 visit for head and body aches. Not likely related to hepatitis withoutyellowing of skin and eyes, abdominal pain, fever, or fatigue; but still possible. b.28May1987 note showed the applicant tried to donate blood, but was told heneeded to be evaluated for hepatitis. He denied symptoms and his exam was negative for signs typical of hepatitis. A hepatitis panel was drawn and he was given transmission precautions. c.03Jun1987 was seen for 2 days of abdominal pain. No other associatedsymptoms. Assessment: Muscle pain. This visit could be related to Hepatitis. d.16Jul1987, visit indicated labs showed he was infectious and was referred toPreventive Medicine. e.16Jul1987 Community Health Nurse. Diagnosis Hepatitis B. The applicant wasnot symptomatic. Follow up as needed. f.19Aug1987 Community Health Nurse. Had some vague symptoms in Jun 1987.Diagnosis: Hepatic Dysfunction. Hepatitis panel showed he was still infectious. A repeat hepatitis was ordered and he was referred to health authorities for follow up in Los Angeles, CA where he was moving after ETS on 27Aug1987. g.16Jul1987 Report of Medical Exam (separation exam) showed a normalabdominal exam and the applicants eyes and skin were not noted to be jaundiced (yellow appearing) h.On 06Apr1998, the liver function tests ALT and AST were in normal range. Theliver function tests drawn in January 1999 were also normal. i.The hepatitis condition was an incidental finding from a blood donation attemptfor the Red Cross. There was one visit while in service likely due to symptomatic hepatitis. There were no follow up visits for symptoms. While in service the applicant was diagnosed with Hepatitis B, however, his symptoms were not such that they significantly interfered with performance of duties. It is noted that the applicant’s liver function testing was normal in 1998 and 1999 (more than 10 years after service). 4.Cervical. There were no visits for neck pain while in service. 5.A JLV search showed the applicant is rated for the following non behavioral healthconditions: Paralysis of Upper Radicular Nerve Group (20%); Degenerative Arthritis ofthe Spine (The Cervical Spine Condition) (20%); Spondylolisthesis or SegmentalInstability (The Lumbar Spine Condition) (20%); and Tinnitus. Based on review ofavailable records these conditions did not result in significant or prolonged dutylimitations, permanent level 3 profiles, or prolonged absences from work. In thereviewer’s opinion, at the time of discharge from military service, none of theseconditions failed medical retention standards in accordance with AR 40-501 chapter 3,warranting separation through medical channels. BOARD DISCUSSION: After review of the application and all evidence, including the medical advisory opinion, the Board found insufficient evidence to grant relief. 1.The Board agreed that the applicant’s medical service records do not indicate thatthe applicant was suffering from militarily unfitting conditions during his active service orat the time of discharge. There is insufficient evidence that the applicant’s VA ratedservice-connected conditions were severe enough during the applicant’s military serviceto receive a permanent 3 Profile or higher that would have required medical boarding.The applicant’s medical service records indicate that the applicant met medical retentionstandards IAW AR 40-501. Therefore, at the time of discharge, he had no unfitting,medically boardable conditions evident. The Board found insufficient evidence in theapplicant’s medical and service records of a medical disability or condition that wouldsupport a change in narrative reason to “disability retirement”. The VA properlyprovided him support and benefits for service connected medical concerns post-service. 2.However, the Board agreed with the correction as stated in the AdministrativeNotes, that the applicant’s narrative reason for separation should reflect the updated,current wording of “Condition, Not a Disability”, vice “Personality Disorder.”BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF : : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING :XX :XX :XX DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: Other than the Administrative Notes annotated by the Analyst of Record (below the signature), the Board determined 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 otherwise insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. 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): 1.Based upon the version of AR 635-5-1 in effect at the time, the applicant was issuedthe appropriate narrative reason for separation based on the authority for his discharge.However, in February 2019, the Army published a revision to AR 635-5-1, whichchanged the wording of narrative reason for separation for Soldiers separated due topersonality disorder; instead of "Personality Disorder," the comment should now read,"Condition, Not a Disability." 2.As a result, amend the applicant's DD Form 214, ending on 26 August 1987, bydeleting the current entry in item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) and replacing itwith "Condition, Not a Disability." REFERENCES: 1.AR 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation ofenlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-13, set forth the policy and prescribed procedures forseparating members with a personality disorder. a.A Soldier could be separated under this provision for having a personalitydisorder, which did not amount to disability, when his/she displayed a deeply-ingrained maladaptive pattern of behavior of long duration that interfered with his/her ability to perform duty. b.The diagnosis of personality disorder had to have been established by apsychiatrist; personality disorders were described in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 3rd edition (DSM III). Separation was only authorized if the diagnosis showed the personality disorder was so severe, the Soldier's ability to function effectively in the military environment was significantly impaired. c.The regulation further stated commanders were not to initiate separation until theSoldier had been formally counseled as to his/her deficiencies and given ample time to overcome those deficiencies. Once the decision was made to proceed with the separation action, commanders were to use the notification procedure. The Soldier's character of service was to be honorable, unless he/she was in an entry-level status. 2.AR 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation), in effect atthe time, stated the mere presence-of an impairment was not sufficient to justify afinding of unfitness due physical disability. In each case, it was necessary to comparethe nature and degree of physical disability present with the duty requirements of theSoldier, based on his/her rank, and with due consideration given to his/her availabilityfor worldwide deployment under field conditions. 3. Title 38, USC, Section 1110 (General - Basic Entitlement). For disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, in the active military, naval, or air service, during other than a period of war, the United States will pay to any Veteran thus disabled and who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable from the period of service in which said injury or disease was incurred, or preexisting injury or disease was aggravated, compensation as provided in this subchapter, but no compensation shall be paid if the disability is a result of the Veteran's own willful misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs. 4. Title 38 USC 1131 (Peacetime Disability Compensation - Basic Entitlement). For disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, in the active military, naval, or air service, during other than a period of war, the United States will pay to any Veteran thus disabled and who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable from the period of service in which said injury or disease was incurred, or preexisting injury or disease was aggravated, compensation as provided in this subchapter, but no compensation shall be paid if the disability is a result of the Veteran's own willful misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs. 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 on the basis of 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 characterization. //NOTHING FOLLOWS//