IN THE CASE OF: 

		BOARD DATE: 11 April 2023

		DOCKET NUMBER: AR20220007721


APPLICANT REQUESTS:   to change his narrative reason for separation from 
“Condition, not a Disability” to something “Service-Connected Disability.” 

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) 
*	Department of Veterans Affairs Summary of Benefits

FACTS:

1.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. 
Code, section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records 
(ABCMR) 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 he was awarded 100% service-connection while on active duty. 
He would like his DD Form 214 corrected to show he was separate due to service-
connection. 

3.  Review of the applicant’s service records shows: 

	a.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 March 2013. He held military occupational 
specialty 11B, Infantryman. He was assigned to Schofield Barracks, Hawaii. 

	b.  The DA Form 3822 (Report of Mental Status Evaluation) that diagnosed him with 
a mental/behavioral disorder is not available for review. Likewise, the DD Form 2808 
(Report of Medical Examination) that would have diagnosed him with any physical 
issues is also not available for review. 

	c.  It appears at some point, a determination was made that the applicant would be 
recommended for separation in accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Active 
Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), Chapter 5-17 (Other Designated Physical or 
Mental Conditions).
	d.  The immediate commander’s notification of separation memorandum is not 
available. If it were, it would show that the applicant's immediate commander notified 
the applicant of his intent to separate him from the Army in accordance with AR 635-200 
chapter 5-17 (Other Designated Physical or Mental Conditions). The notification 
memorandum would have also listed the specific reason for action and the character of 
service being recommended. 

	e.  The applicant’s acknowledgement memorandum and election of rights 
memorandum is also not available.  If it were, it would show that the applicant The 
acknowledged receipt of the foregoing notice from his commander. He would have 
consulted with counsel and indicated he had advised of the contemplated action to 
separate him for an Other Designated Physical or Mental Condition under Chapter 5-17, 
AR 635-200, and he had been informed of the rights available to him under the 
regulation. 

*	he would have indicated his understanding that he was not entitled to an 
administrative separation board (he had less than 6 years of total military 
service) 
*	he would have indicated whether a statement in his own behalf would be 
submitted  

	f.  On 1 April 2014, a Judge Advocate General (JAG) officer conducted a legal 
review of separation under AR 635-200, chapter 5-17, Other Designated Physical or 
Mental Conditions, pertaining to the applicant. The JAG officer indicate that the 
separation is legally sufficient and that both the Company and Battalion Commanders 
have both recommended an Honorable discharge.

	g.  On 4 April 2014, the separation authority reviewed the separation packet on the 
applicant, and after careful consideration of all matters, he directed the applicant be 
separated from the Army prior to the expiration of current term of service. 

	h.  The applicant was accordingly discharged on 18 April 2014. His DD Form 214 
(Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under 
the provisions of paragraph 5-17 of AR 635-200 due to a condition, not a disability. He 
completed 1 year, 1 month, and 14 days of active service. His DD Form 214 shows in: 

*	Block 25 (Separation Authority) - AR 635-200, Paragraph 5-17
*	Block 26 (Separation Code) - JFV
*	Block 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation), Physical Condition, not a 
Disability

4.  On 16 May 2022, the VA provided the applicant with a Summary of Benefits, 
indicating he has one or more service-connected disabilities and that his combined 
service-connected rating is 100% effective 1 December 2021. 

5.  By regulation (AR 635-200), paragraph 5-17, states commanders may approve 
separation under this paragraph based on other 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, which is sufficiently severe that 
the Soldier's ability to effectively perform military duties is significantly impaired.

6.  By regulation (AR 635-5), the DD Form 214 is a summary of the Soldier's most 
recent period of continuous active duty. It provides a brief, clear-cut record of all current 
active, prior active, and prior inactive duty service at the time of release from active 
duty, retirement, or discharge. The information entered thereon reflects the conditions 
as they existed at the time of separation. The specific instructions for

*	Block 25, Separation Authority, obtain correct entry from regulatory or directives 
authorizing the separation
*	Block 26, Separation Code, obtain correct entry from AR 635–5–1, which 
provides the corresponding separation program designator code for the 
regulatory authority and reason for separation 
*	Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, this is based on regulatory or other 
authority and can be checked against the cross reference in AR 635–5–1 

7.  By regulation (AR 635-5-1), Separation Program Designator Code JFV is the 
appropriate code to assign to enlisted Soldiers who are administratively discharged 
under AR 635-200, paragraph 5-17, based on a condition, not a disability.

8.  The Army rates only conditions determined to be physically unfitting at the time 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.

9.  Title 38, U.S. Code, Sections 1110 and 1131, permit the VA to award compensation 
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.  

10.  Title 38, CFR, Part IV is the VA’s schedule for rating disabilities. The VA awards 
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.

11.  MEDICAL REVIEW:

    a.  The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting correction of his DD Form 214 
to show a change of narrative reason for separation from “Condition not a Disability” to 
something “Service-Connected Disability”.  

    b.  The specific facts and circumstances of the case can be found in the ABCMR 
Record of Proceedings (ROP). Pertinent to this advisory are the following: 1) The 
applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 March 2013; 2) On 23 January 2014 the 
applicant underwent a Report of Mental Status Evaluation.  The provider diagnosed the 
applicant with Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Disturbance of Emotion and Conduct, 
and recommended immediate separation, and noted the applicant psychiatrically 
cleared for administrative separation; 3) The immediate commander’s notification of 
separation memorandum is not available. If it were, it would show that the applicant's 
immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to separate him from the Army 
in accordance with AR 635-200 chapter 5-17 (Other Designated Physical or Mental 
Conditions). The notification memorandum would have also listed the specific reason for 
action and the character of service being recommended; 4) On 1 April 2014, a Judge 
Advocate General (JAG) officer conducted a legal review of separation under AR 635-
200, chapter 5-17, Other Designated Physical or Mental Conditions, pertaining to the 
applicant. The JAG officer indicated that the separation was legally sufficient and that 
both the Company and Battalion Commanders have both recommended an honorable 
discharge; 5) The applicant was accordingly discharged on 18 April 2014. His DD Form 
214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was discharged 
under the provisions of paragraph 5-17 of AR 635-200 due to a condition, not a 
disability.  
    c.  The military electronic medical record, AHLTA, VA electronic medical record, JLV, 
and ROP were reviewed.  A review of AHLTA showed he applicant first BH-related 
engagement on active duty occurred at Schofield Barracks AHC, HI, on 2 October 2013 
whereby the applicant sought care for depressed mood.  The applicant reported 
dissatisfaction with the military since arriving to HI three months prior and concerns 
about his ailing grandmother and mother. He reported depressed mood, sleep 
difficulties, anhedonia, and worry.  Diagnosis was deferred during the encounter and the 
applicant was scheduled for an intake. An encounter note dated 28 October 2013 
showed the applicant attended a BH introductory group and after the group he met with 
a provider and reported significant stress related not being able to get home to visit his 
mother.  He shared that he considered punching an NCO in order to be separated by 
decided against it.  The provider noted a rule-out for adjustment disorder and agreed to 
see the applicant the following day.  During the session the next day the applicant 
endorsed symptoms of losing his temper, fearfulness, mood swings, fighting, 
depression, and isolation.  He reported family medical issues back home, hand a desire 
to separate from the military.  He was diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder with 
Disturbance of Emotion and Conduct, and scheduled for follow-up. During encounter 
dated 18 November 2013 the applicant continued with his primary complaints and again 
expressed his desire to be discharged from the military.  He stated having no motivation 
to perform any military related duties and having failed two physical fitness tests.  The 
provider noted the applicant “reported multiple stressors with recent stressor of 
Christmas leave being pulled. [Applicant] thus far appears to have poor prognosis. 
[Applicant] could put himself and others at risk due to his preoccupations and desperate 
attitude”.
    d.  Encounter noted dated 2 December 2013 showed the applicant left a note for his 
provider stating that the applicant’s situation had become worse, and he had been 
losing his temper. The provider contacted the applicant, who reported he had gotten into 
a fight over the weekend after becoming drunk, and upon arriving back at the barracks 
put a knife to his arm and made it bleed. The provide noted “the applicant reported still 
having those thoughts”. The applicant’s 1SG was contacted to escort SM to Tripler 
Army Medical Center, where the applicant was subsequently cleared and released the 
same night. Encounter note dated 3 December 2013 showed the applicant, 
commander, and provider met.  During the encounter the applicant clarified that this 
action was not a suicide attempt, rather and action taken to see if he could feel.  The 
provider noted the applicant recanting the discussion from the previous night, in the 
presence of his command.  Once command cleared the session the provider reported 
changing his story to avoid further command reprisal.
    e.  On 3 January 2014 the applicant underwent psychodiagnostics testing. The 
results of the testing revealed diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder with Anxiety and 
Depressed Mood, and Borderline Personality Disorder.  On 14 January 2014 the 
applicant was psychiatrically hospitalized for homicidal ideation, citing a desire to hurt or 
kill others.  During an inpatient encounter session, the applicant reiterated his thoughts 
of homicidal ideation, stating that he wanted to kill people and was serious about it, as 
he was very angry. He reported becoming angry “5-6 months ago after being hit with 
several family issues to include his grandmother passing away and leaving his mother 
in financial troubles”.  The applicant also endorsed getting into fights and enjoying them 
and recounted an instance whereby he volunteered to confront an individual who owed 
money to a friend and had yet to pay him.  The applicant stated that he went to take the 
money and decided he would kill the individual if he had too.  The applicant remained 
hospitalized until 16 January 2014.  His diagnoses upon discharge reflected Adjustment 
Disorder with Disturbance of Emotion and Conduct and a recommendation was made 
for administrative separation under provision of AR 635-200, Chapter 5-17.  He was 
referred to outpatient individual and group therapies.
    f.  On 23 January 2014 the applicant underwent a Report of Mental Status 
Evaluation.  The provider diagnosed the applicant with Adjustment Disorder with Mixed 
Disturbance of Emotion and Conduct, recommended immediate separation, and noted 
the applicant psychiatrically cleared for administrative separation.  The applicant 
remained in outpatient individual and group therapy until discharge.
    g.  A Review of JLV showed the applicant 100 percent service-connected for 
Schizoaffective Disorder.  A VA C&P dated 29 May 2020 showed the examiner found 
“Symptoms of Schizoaffective Disorder, Depressive Type, Insomnia Disorder, and 
Intermittent Explosive Disorder manifested as first starting with sleep problems after his 
alleged exposure to intense boot camp drill sergeant behavior and within a few months, 
escalated to a state of paranoia, ruminative thinking patterns, and delusional appraisals 
of the behavior of superiors being against him and mistreating him that progressed, in a 
vicious cycle pattern, of his being made an example or targeted due to his increasingly 
reactive way of handling his orders, directives, and disciplinary actions that caused his 
Schizoaffective Disorder, Depressive Type with continuous/chronic sleep problems 
consistent with Insomnia Disorder and then progressing to include Intermittent 
Explosive Disorder (IED)…..”.  The examiner concluded, “therefore, the [applicant’s] 
Schizoaffective Disorder, Depressive Type, Insomnia Disorder, and Intermittent 
Explosive Disorder are least as likely as not consistent with the circumstances, 
conditions or hardships, of his military service”.  
    h.  The applicant’s first BH-related engagement with the VA subsequent his C&P 
Examination appears to have occurred at the Orlando FL VA on 23 June 2021, whereby 
the applicant sought psychotropic medication to address his symptoms.  He reported 
being off medication for approximately 7-months and wanted to see his PCP to begin 
medication again. The applicant was encouraged to report to the same-day clinic as his 
PCP had limited availability, but he declined. He was scheduled for outpatient care at 
the Discovery Clinic.  Records appear void of the applicant receiving BH-related care at 
the VA subsequent the 23 June 2021 date, likely due to him receiving care in the 
community.
    i.  The applicant is requesting a change to his narrative reason for separation from 
“Condition, not a Disability” to something “Service-Connected Disability”.  A review of 
the records showed the applicant with in-service diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder with 
Disturbance of Emotion and Conduct, Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and 
Depressed Mood, and Borderline Personality Disorder, and post-service diagnoses of 
Schizoaffective Disorder, which was found to be service-connected at 70 percent.  The 
examining VA provider noted onset of Schizoaffective Disorder having occurred during 
BCT, and stated that the symptoms reported across the applicant’s time in service, such 
as ruminative thinking about killing, paranoia, and delusional beliefs his unit working 
against him were more likely than not reflective of Schizoaffective Disorder versus 
Adjustment Disorders or Borderline Personality Disorder. There is not sufficient 
evidence in the record to support the applicant was improperly diagnosed while in 
service, therefor the separation appears to have been proper and equitable.  However, 
given the VA finding and the possibility the applicant was in fact experiencing symptoms 
of Schizoaffective Disorder during service, it is the recommendation of this advisor the 
Board considers referral to DES for further review

Kurta Questions:

		(1)  Does any evidence state that the applicant had a condition or experience that 
may excuse or mitigate a discharge? Yes.  The applicant is 100 percent SC for 
Schizoaffective Disorder.  

		(2)  Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes.  
Symptom onset reportedly began during BCT and became progressively worse over the 
course of his time in service. 

		(3)  Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? 
Yes. The applicant is requesting a change to his narrative reason for separation from 
“Condition, not a Disability” to something “Service-Connected Disability”.  A review of 
the records showed the applicant with in-service diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder with 
Disturbance of Emotion and Conduct, Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and 
Depressed Mood, and Borderline Personality Disorder, and post-service diagnoses of 
Schizoaffective Disorder, which was found to be service-connected at 70 percent.  The 
examining VA provider noted onset of Schizoaffective Disorder having occurred during 
BCT, and stated that the symptoms reported across the applicant’s time in service, such 
as ruminative thinking about killing, paranoia, and delusional beliefs his unit working 
against him were more likely than not reflective of Schizoaffective Disorder versus 
Adjustment Disorders or Borderline Personality Disorder. There is not sufficient 
evidence in the record to support the applicant was improperly diagnosed while in 
service, therefor the separation appears to have been proper and equitable.  However, 
given the VA finding and the possibility the applicant was in fact experiencing symptoms 
of Schizoaffective Disorder during service, it is the recommendation of this advisor the 
Board considers referral to DES for further review

BOARD DISCUSSION:

After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within 
the military record, the Board found that relief was partially warranted. The applicant’s 
contentions, the military record, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. The 
complete separation packet is not available for review. However, other evidence shows 
he was separated under AR 635-200, chapter 5-17 (Other Designated Physical or 
Mental Conditions). The Board reviewed the medical advisor’s finding that the applicant 
has in-service diagnoses of Adjustment Disorder with Disturbance of Emotion and 
Conduct, Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood, and Borderline 
Personality Disorder, and post-service diagnoses of Schizoaffective Disorder, which 
was found to be service-connected at 70 percent. The examining VA provider noted 
onset of Schizoaffective Disorder having occurred during basic combat training, and 
stated that the symptoms reported across the applicant’s time in service. There is 
insufficient evidence in the record to support the applicant was improperly diagnosed 
while in service, therefor the separation appears to have been proper and equitable. 
However, given the VA finding and the possibility the applicant was in fact experiencing 
symptoms of Schizoaffective Disorder during service, the Board determined his referral 
to the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) is appropriate. 

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 that the evidence presented was 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 referring 
his records to The Office of the Surgeon General for review to determine if he should 
have been discharged or retired by reason of physical disability under the Legacy 
Disability Evaluation System (DES).  

	a.  In the event that a formal physical evaluation board (PEB) becomes necessary, 
the individual concerned will be issued invitational travel orders to prepare for and 
participate in consideration of his case by a formal PEB.  All required reviews and 
approvals will be made subsequent to completion of the formal PEB.  

	b.  Should a determination be made that the applicant should have been separated 
under the DES, these proceedings will serve as the authority to void his administrative 
separation and to issue him the appropriate separation retroactive to his original 
separation date, with entitlement to all back pay and allowances and/or retired pay, less 
any entitlements already received. 

2.  The Board further determined that 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 changing his type of discharge without evaluation under the 
IDES.

	 
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, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of 
military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or 
injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to 
timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in 
the interest of justice to do so.

2.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) provides 
for the separation of enlisted personnel from active duty. Paragraph 5-17, states 
commanders who are special court-martial convening authorities may approve 
separation under this paragraph based on other 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, which is sufficiently severe that 
the Soldier's ability to effectively perform military duties is significantly impaired.

3.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, prescribed the 
separation documents that must be prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or 
release from active duty service or control of the Active Army. It established 
standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214. The DD Form 214 
is a summary of the Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty. It provides a 
brief, clear-cut record of all current active, prior active, and prior inactive duty service at 
the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge. The information entered 
thereon reflects the conditions as they existed at the time of separation. The general 
instructions stated all available records would be used as a basis for preparation of the 
DD Form 214. The specific instructions for

	a.  Block 25, Separation Authority, obtain correct entry from regulatory or directives 
authorizing the separation

	b.  Block 26, Separation Code, obtain correct entry from AR 635–5–1, which 
provides the corresponding separation program designator code for the regulatory 
authority and reason for separation. 

	c.  Block 28, Narrative Reason for Separation, this is based on regulatory or other 
authority and can be checked against the cross reference in AR 635–5–1. 

4.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides 
the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from 
active duty, and the SPD code to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identifies SPD 
code JFV as the appropriate code to assign to enlisted Soldiers who are 
administratively discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, 
paragraph 5-17, based on a condition, not a disability.

5.  Title 38, U.S. Code 1110 (General - Basic Entitlement) states 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 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.

6.  Title 38 U.S. Code 1131 (Peacetime Disability Compensation - Basic Entitlement) 
states 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.

//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20220007721


1
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1