IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 15 August 2023 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20230000520 APPLICANT REQUESTS: upgrade his under honorable conditions (general) discharge to an honorable discharge, and his narrative reason for separation as something other than "personality disorder." 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), for the period ending 11 October 1984 • Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Letter Certifying Privileges, dated 4 December 2020 • VA Rating Decision Letter, 15 January 2021 • VA Form 21-4138 (Statement in Support of Claim), 28 September 2022 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, in effect, on VA Form 21-4138 that he is service connected for acquired psychiatric disorders including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), personality disorder with paranoid schizophrenia [other mental health (OMH) issues], and traumatic brain injury (TBI). He was discharged with a general characterization of service due to a personality disorder and his service connection proves this was incurred in service. 3. On 6 March 1980, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a 4-year service obligation. Upon completion of training and award of military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman), he was assigned to Fort Benning, GA, and arrived on 8 July 1980. 4. On 13 December 1981, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment, under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for wrongfully disposing of military property of a value of about $2,033 (motor pool parts), on or about 16 October 1981. His punishment included reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $275 pay, extra duty for seven days restriction. 5. On 13 June 1982, the applicant was treated at the Martin Army Community Hospital, Fort Benning, GA, for a fractured nasal bone and laceration to the back of his head, after he was assaulted by several guys. He also stated, while on a weekend pass in Columbus, GA, he was assaulted by another Soldier with an axe handle while off duty, unprovoked and charges were pending. 6. On 21 November 1982, he departed Fort Benning, GA when he was reassigned to Hawaii. 7. The applicant’s service record contains the following DA Forms 4856 (Developmental Counseling Forms) showing he was counseled on the following occasions: • 29 December 1982, indicating he showed great promise as a new M60 gunner • 22 April 1983, showing he was making great progress • 5 May 1983, performed well in Expert Infantry Badge training • 6 May 1983, performed well during silver and gold week training, needed to work on pushups • 7 June 1983, his attention to detail was the reason for his great success and outstanding performance • 1 August 1983, performance was very good and high motivation • 3 August 1983, needed to get up on time but was a good troop • 9 September 1983, attitude was ok but needed to pick up motivation and needed extra physical training, his appearance and room looked good • 18 November 1983, field performance was average, high motivation, but seemed to joke around too much • 3 February 1984, not wearing a ‘Bob Cat” t-shirt listed as failure to repair] 8. On 6 February 1984, he reenlisted for a 3-year service obligation (See Administrative Notes). 9. On 4 April 1984, a civilian counselor submitted a memorandum to his chain of command recommending a leave of absence and battery of tests at the Straub Clinic between 10 April and 27 April 1984. This counselor submitted a second letter on 5 April 1984, requesting the applicant be allowed to reside off post for the duration of his testing and additional counseling. He would be allowed to use her vehicle; this was said to have been cleared through his First Sergeant. The applicant would need to be excused from 8 April through 14 April 1984, 21 April to 24 April, and again on 27 April 1984 for neurological exams. 10. He was again counseled on 29 June 1984, about his inability to be with the squad due to personal issues and being in limbo regarding his profile and retention. On 31 July 1984, his platoon and squad leader counseled him, noting that he had made some poor personal decisions which caused him some legal problems with a counselor. He had not been a troublemaker, had performed all required tasks, and had shown great improvements since arriving. 11. On 6 August 1984, the applicant’s immediate commander submitted a memorandum for record, noting the applicant had been counseled on numerous occasions in reference to his duty performance and mental attitude towards the military. These issues had continued to persist even though the individual had been evaluated by mental health. 12. On 31 August 1984, the applicant's immediate commander informed him of his intent to initiate actions to separate him from service under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 5-13, by reason of personality disorder. He cited, as the reason for the proposed action, an evaluation with a diagnostic impression of borderline intellectual functioning, organic personality syndrome. 13. On 5 September 1984, the applicant consulted with counsel and acknowledged receipt of the notification memorandum. He was advised of the reason for separation and the rights available to him. He requested counsel and submitted a statement in his own behalf; however, this statement is not available for review. 14. On 11 September 1984, the applicant's immediate commander formally recommended his separation under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 5. The commander noted the applicant’s duty performance was unsatisfactory and he had become a disruptive factor in the unit. The applicant had been seen by civilian and military doctors regarding his personality disorder and all were in accord that he should not be retained. He was given numerous chances regarding rehabilitation and had shown an unwillingness and inability to alter his behavior. Further rehabilitative measures were deemed inappropriate. 15. On 13 September 1984, the battalion commander concurred with the separation recommendation, but did not indicate a recommended service characterization. 16. On 27 September 1984, the separation authority approved the recommended separation action, and directed the issuance of a DD Form 257A (General Discharge Certificate). 17. On 2 October 1984, his immediate commander officially counseled him on the types of discharges he could receive and the potential outcome of receiving a general discharge. 18. On 11 October 1984, the applicant was discharge accordingly. His DD Form 214 confirms he was separated under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-13, with a narrative reason for separation of "personality disorder." His service was characterized as under honorable conditions (general). He was credited with completing 4, years, 7 months, and 6 days of net active service. He was awarded or authorized the Army Achievement Medal, Army Service Ribbon, and two marksmanship badges. 19. Paragraph 5-13 of Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, stated a service member may be separated for personality disorder not amounting to disability that interfered with assignment or performance of duty when diagnosed by a medical authority. A Soldier separated under this section will be awarded a character of service of honorable or under honorable conditions (general). 20. The applicant provides a VA rating decision letter, which shows he has a combined 100 percent service-connected disability rating, which includes ratings for PTSD, TBI and OMH issues. 21. In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition, arguments and assertions, and service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency guidance. 22. MEDICAL REVIEW: a. Background: The applicant is requesting an upgrade to his under honorable conditions (general) discharge to an honorable discharge, and his narrative reason for separation as something other than "personality disorder." The specific facts and circumstances of the case can be found in the ABCMR Record of Proceedings (ROP). Below is a brief summary of information pertinent to this advisory: • The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 March 1980. He reenlisted on 6 February 1984. • On 13 December 1981, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) for wrongfully disposing of military property of a value of about $2,033 (motor pool parts), on or about 16 October 1981. • The applicant had numerous counseling between December 1982 and July 1984, with his counseling transitioning from positive to concerning around August of 1983. On 6 August 1984, the applicant’s immediate commander submitted a memorandum for record, noting the applicant had been counseled on numerous occasions in reference to his duty performance and mental attitude towards the military. • On 31 August 1984, the applicant's immediate commander informed him of his intent to initiate separation under AR 635-200, paragraph 5-13, by reason of personality disorder. He cited, as the reason for the proposed action, an evaluation with a diagnostic impression of borderline intellectual functioning, organic personality syndrome. • On 11 October 1984, the applicant was discharged accordingly. His DD Form 214 confirms he was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, with a narrative reason for separation of "personality disorder." His service was characterized as under honorable conditions (general). b. Review of Available Records Including Medical: The Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA) Behavioral Health (BH) Advisor reviewed this case. Documentation reviewed included the applicant’s completed DD Form 149, his ABCMR Record of Proceedings (ROP), Department of Veterans Affairs Letter Certifying Privileges, VA rating Decision Letter, VA From 21-4138 (statement in support of claim), DD Form 214, as well as documents from his service record and separation. The VA electronic medical record and DoD health record were reviewed through Joint Longitudinal View (JLV). Lack of citation or discussion in this section should not be interpreted as lack of consideration. c. The applicant asserts that PTSD, other mental health and TBI mitigate his discharge and that he is service connected for PTSD, personality disorder with paranoid schizophrenia and TBI. He asserts that his service connection proves it was service incurred and that he was discharged because of it. No medical records were available in his electronic health record (EHR) from his time in service, which is consistent with the years he served. His service record reflects that he was treated at Martin Army Community Hospital 13 June 1982 for fractured nasal bone and laceration to the back of his head. He was assaulted, unprovoked, by several guys with an axe handle while on a weekend pass in Columbus, GA. Service record counseling forms from 29 December 1982 until 3 February through 3 August 1983 were all positive. Shortly thereafter, his counseling statements started to reflect a need for his motivation to improve and indicated some other concerns. On 4 April 1984 a memorandum by a civilian counselor was submitted requesting a leave of absence for the applicant to complete a battery of tests for a neurological exam between 10 April and 27 April 1984. A counseling from 29 June 1984 also reflects he continued to have personal issues, and there were still questions about his ability to be retained and his profile. A counseling from 31 July 1984 indicated he’d had some legal problems due to poor personal decisions but had been showing improvement since arriving and had been performing well. In his formal recommendation by his commander for separation under chapter 5-13 (11 September 1984), the commander noted the applicant’s duty performance was unsatisfactory, he was a disruptive factor in the unit, he had been seen by civilian and military doctors regarding his personality disorder, and all were in accord that he should not be retained (he’d shown an unwillingness and inability to alter his behavior). Of note, his counseling statements in the record did not reflect the severity of concerns the command noted. In addition, his discharge packet states a mental status exam occurred and was included, though this was not found in the record. Also, the full psychological exam cited, mental health treatment records, nor the recommendations the commander noted were provided. No other medical records from his time in service were made available. In summary, the applicant was assaulted and likely experienced a traumatic brain injury. He was diagnosed with an organic personality disorder, which indicates a personality change secondary to damage to his brain. There is no indication he was diagnosed with PTSD while in the service. d. His EHR post discharge shows the applicant engaged with the VA starting in 2009 and has consistently engaged with mental health care from 2011 to present. He’s held numerous diagnoses to include paranoid schizophrenia, schizophrenia unspecified, major depressive disorder, agoraphobia, PTSD, psychotic disorder with hallucinations due to known physiological condition, and unspecified psychosis. The applicant has engaged in therapy, psychiatry, and inpatient care. The applicant had a compensation and pension evaluation 1 October 2009 for PTSD and TBI where he reports being hit with an axe handle and started having problems after that, specifically noting significant trauma related symptoms. The C&P report indicates that medical records from his service stated he tended to “over-attribute his subsequent mental and physical difficulties to the incident.” His testing results from this C&P left the relationship between his mental health and his functioning unclear, and that his presentation was not consistent with collateral information in his C-File. Given his service connection, it is evident the applicant did receive another C&P evaluation, though it is not available in his record for review. The applicant is 100% service connected, to include 100% for PTSD per his current medical record. Supporting documents (memo verifying service-connected disabilities) provided state he is service connected at 100% for TBI as well as “acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and personality disorder with paranoid schizophrenia.” e. Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the Agency Behavioral Health Advisor that there is sufficient evidence to support that the applicant had a potentially mitigating condition or experience during his time in service. There is also sufficient indication that his case should be referred to the DES process for review. Kurta Questions: (1) Does any evidence state that the applicant had a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate a discharge? Yes. Applicant was assaulted/experienced a trauma while in the service. He also asserts PTSD, other mental health and TBI. (2) Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service? Yes, the applicant asserts mitigating conditions and experiences while in the service. He is also 100% service connected for PTSD. (3) Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes. The applicant contends PTSD, TBI and other mental health mitigate his discharge, and that his personality disorder was service incurred. There is insufficient evidence that the applicant experienced PTSD during his time in service, however there is sufficient evidence he experienced a TBI and had a personality disorder diagnosed. The applicant is correct in stating that his personality disorder has been found to be service incurred, as the diagnoses he received was an organic personality disorder, which means a significant personality change occurred, typically due to some form of damage to the brain, for example through injury or infection. And the applicant has since been service connected for these conditions, to include PTSD. In addition, the applicant’s account is consistent across his years of care; he reports the mental health symptoms, to include hallucinations, began shortly after his attack/assault while in the Army. The applicant received a general discharge, with his commander stating that the reason for discharge was the applicant’s performance and inability to rehabilitate, even with medical intervention. In terms of what the applicant requested, this advisor would typically recommend an upgrade to his discharge and a change in record from 5-13 “Due to Personality Disorder,” to 5-14 -“Other designated physical or mental conditions,” to accurately reflect policy changes IAW 635-200 published in JUN 2021. However, this advisor is recommending a referral to the DES process. While a personality disorder is not typically a med boardable condition, his organic personality disorder and borderline intellectual function both were given as a result of his TBI. Hence, he received a significant enough brain injury during his time in service that altered his brain functioning enough to cause a personality disorder and other cognitive concerns. This personality change is the reason cited for his discharge. While minimal records are available, the mental status exam was not included, and there’s no other indication of a medical or mental health profile, it does appear evident the applicant was not fit for duty. This provider recommends a referral into the DES for traumatic brain injury. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application, all supporting documents, and the evidence found within the applicant's military records, the Board found that relief was warranted. The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, evidence in the records, and published DoD guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests. The applicant was discharged due to a personality disorder with a general discharge. The Board considered the medical records, any VA documents provided by the applicant and the review and conclusions of the advising official. a. The Board concurred with the medical advisory opinion finding insufficient evidence that the applicant experienced PTSD during his time in service. However, the Board agreed that there is sufficient evidence he experienced a TBI and had a personality disorder diagnosed. The applicant contends that his personality disorder has been found to be service incurred, as the diagnoses he received was an organic personality disorder, which means a significant personality change occurred, typically due to some form of damage to the brain, likely through injury or infection. And the applicant has since been service connected for these conditions, to include PTSD. In addition, the applicant’s account is consistent across his years of care; he reports the mental health symptoms, to include hallucinations, began shortly after his attack/assault while in the Army. b. The Board also agreed that a referral to the DES process is appropriate. While a personality disorder is not typically a medically boardable condition, his organic personality disorder and borderline intellectual function both were given as a result of his TBI. Hence, he received a significant enough brain injury during his time in service that altered his brain functioning enough to cause a personality disorder and other cognitive concerns. This personality change is the reason cited for his discharge. While minimal records are available, the mental status exam was not included, and there’s no other indication of a medical or mental health profile, it does appear evident the applicant was not fit for duty. The Board recommends a referral into the DES for traumatic brain injury. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF xx: xx: xx: 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 showing the applicant’s traumatic brain injury was found in line of duty and directing the applicant be entered into the Disability Evaluation System (DES) and a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) convened to determine whether the applicant’s medical condition, met medical retention standards at the time of service separation. 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 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. 8/15/2023 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. Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1556, provides the Secretary of the Army shall ensure that an applicant seeking corrective action by ARBA is provided a copy of all correspondence and communications, including summaries of verbal communications, with any agencies or persons external to agency or board, or a member of the staff of the agency or Board, that directly pertains to or has material effect on the applicant's case, except as authorized by statute. 3. Army Regulation 635-200, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. An honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. b. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. c. Paragraph 5-13, in effect at that time stated a service member may be separated for personality disorder not amounting to disability that interferes with assignment to or performance of duty when so diagnosed by a medical authority. A Soldier being separated under this section will be awarded a character of service of honorable, under honorable conditions, or an entry-level separation. Characterization of service under honorable conditions may be awarded to a member who has been convicted of an offense by general court-martial or who has been convicted by more than one special court-martial in the current enlistment, period of obligated service, or any extension thereof. 4. On 3 September 2014, the Secretary of Defense directed the Service Discharge Review Boards (DRB) and Service Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records (BCM/NR) to carefully consider the revised PTSD criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged under other than honorable conditions and who have been diagnosed with PTSD by a competent mental health professional representing a civilian healthcare provider in order to determine if it would be appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's service. 5. On 25 August 2017, the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued clarifying guidance for the Secretary of Defense Directive to DRBs and BCM/NRs when considering requests by Veterans for modification of their discharges due in whole or in part to: mental health conditions, including PTSD; TBI; sexual assault; or sexual harassment. Boards are to give liberal consideration to Veterans petitioning for discharge relief when the application for relief is based in whole or in part to those conditions or experiences. The guidance further describes evidence sources and criteria and requires Boards to consider the conditions or experiences presented in evidence as potential mitigation for misconduct that led to the discharge. 6. On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to Military DRBs and 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. a. 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, Boards 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. b. 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//