IN THE CASE OF:    
 
  BOARD DATE: 29 August 2023 
 
  DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20230000793 
 
 
APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Reconsideration of his previous request to change his narrative reason for separation from "Unsuitability - Personality Disorder" to an undisclosed reason.  
 
APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENT(S) CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:   
 
• DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record), with a self-authored statement 

• DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), for the period ending 23 July 1981 

• Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Summary of Benefits Letter, dated 10 February 2020 

• Congressional Actions Officer email response, dated 4 May 2022 

• My-health-evet, printout dated 27 September 2022 


 
FACTS:   
 
1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR1999021460 on 18 August 1999.  
 
2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was suffering from the effects of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a condition no one knew about at the time. He did not have a personality disorder but was dealing with issues from his prior service in the Republic of Vietnam (RVN). While in the RVN, he was treated for rectal bleeding which was diagnosed as dysentery. However, this diagnosis was later changed to ulcerative colitis. He now lives with an ileostomy after having a total proctocolectomy. After separation he became a Family Nurse Practitioner and never missed a day of work. 
 
3.  Having had prior honorable service in the U.S. Air Force, including 12 months in the RVN, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 March 1977. He was trained in military occupational specialty 91B (Medical Specialist) and later as a 91C (Patient Care Specialist). He was promoted to Specialist Six/E-6 on 1 September 1979 and was honorably discharged on 29 May 1980 for immediate reenlistment.  
4.  On 30 May 1980, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army for a 5-year service obligation. On 5 July 1980, he departed Fort Knox, KY enroute to Germany, and was reported absent without leave (AWOL) on 7 August 1980.  
 
5.  On 31 October 1980, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment, under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being AWOL from on or about 11 August 1980 until 15 September 1980. His punishment included reduction to Sergeant/E-5 (suspended for 90 days) and forfeiture of $430 for one-month.  
 
6.  On 17 April 1981, the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation. The examining physician diagnosed him with a passive/aggressive personality disorder manifested by resistance to demands for adequate performance expressed indirectly through procrastination, intentional inefficiency, and forgetfulness, associated with poor adaption to ordinary situations, occasional poor judgement, ineptness, and social instability. These characterological difficulties made him unable to adapt to military life. The applicant provided a lengthy history of poor social and work adaption characteristic of a personality disorder. He was able to distinguish right from wrong but had characterological difficulties, which made effective military duty, unlikely. He did not have a mental illness that qualified him for separation through medical channel and was cleared for administrative separation.  
 
7.  On 26 May 1981, the applicant's commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate actions to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 13-4b, for personality disorder. As the specific reasons he noted, the applicant’s character difficulties made effective duty unlikely and his diagnosis of passive aggressive personality disorder, and his lengthy history of poor work and social adaption. The commander included a chronology of counseling showing the applicant was counseled on at least six occasions for being tardy to work, having an apathetic attitude towards his peers and responsibilities, having poor military bearing, actions unbecoming of a noncommissioned officer, and manipulating his profile. The commander also requested a waiver of further rehabilitative measures.  
 
8.  On 26 May 1982, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation notification. He was advised of the reasons for separation, of the rights available to him, and the effect of any action taken by him in waiving those rights. He waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board and waived a personal appearance. He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  
 
9.  On 27 May 1981, the applicant’s commander formally recommended his separation from service before the expiration of his term of service, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, for unsuitability. He noted that a medical separation examination was completed.  
10.  Subsequently, the separation authority approved the recommended separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-4b. He directed the narrative reason for separation be annotated as “unsuitability - personal disorder” and the issuance of a DD Form 256A (Honorable Discharge Certificate).  
 
11.  On 23 July 1981, the applicant was honorably discharged. His DD Form 214 confirms he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-4b, with Separation Program Designator Code "JMB" [character or behavior disorder] and narrative reason for separation of unsuitability – personality disorder. He was credited with completing 4 years, 3 months, and 12 days of net active service this period. He was awarded or authorized the Vietnam Service Medal, National Defense Service Medal, Good Conduct Medal, and two marksmanship qualification badges.  
 
12.  On 18 August 1999, the ABCMR considered the applicant's request to change his narrative reason for separation. The Board determined after careful consideration of his military records and all other available evidence, that he was properly discharged, and denied his request.  
 
13.  The applicant provides:  
 
• a VA summary of benefits letter showing he was considered 100 percent totally and permanently disabled due to service-connected disabilities, effective 1 December 2019 

• Congressional Actions Officer email directing him to apply to the ABCMR 

• My-health-evet print out of doctor’s letter showing he was diagnosed with PTSD 


 
14.  In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant’s petition and the service record in accordance with the published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance.  
 
15.  MEDICAL REVIEW:   
 
    a.  The applicant is applying to the ABCMR requesting reconsideration of his previous request to change his narrative reason for separation of "Unsuitability - Personality Disorder."  He contends he was experiencing PTSD that mitigated his misconduct, which resulted in his administrative separation. 
    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 4 March 1977. This was after his honorable service in the U.S. Air Force, including 12 months deployed in Vietnam; 2) On 31 October 1980, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment for being AWOL from 11 
August-15 September 1980; 3) On 26 May 1981, the applicant's commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate actions to separate him under Chapter 13-4b for personality disorder. The commander included a chronology of counseling showing the applicant was counseled for being tardy to work, having an apathetic attitude towards his peers and responsibilities, having poor military bearing, actions unbecoming of a noncommissioned officer, and manipulating his profile; 4) On 23 July 1981, the applicant was honorably discharged, Chapter 13-4b, with Separation Program Designator Code "JMB" [character or behavior disorder] and narrative reason for separation of unsuitability – personality disorder; 5) On 18 August 1999, the ABCMR considered and denied the applicant's request to change his narrative reason for separation. 
    c.  The Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting documents and the applicant’s military service and medical records. The VA’s Joint Legacy Viewer (JLV) and hard copy medical documentation provided by the applicant were also reviewed. 
 
    d.  The applicant asserts he was experiencing PTSD as a result of his deployment to Vietnam and the medical complications he experienced as a result. There is insufficient evidence the applicant was seen by behavioral health for treatment while on active service, but he did complete a psychiatric evaluation on 17 April 1981. The applicant was diagnosed by a military psychiatrist with a passive aggressive personality disorder, and the applicant was recommended for separation and medically cleared for administrative action. The applicant has been seen and treated for the physical complications as the result of his illness incurred during his deployment to Vietnam. He has also been diagnosed with service-connected PTSD (10%), which is a result of his deployment to Vietnam and complications incurred as a result of his physical illness he experienced while deployed. 
    e.  Based on the available information, it is the opinion of the Agency BH Advisor that there is sufficient evidence to support the applicant had condition or experience that mitigated his misconduct, which would more accurately account for his behavior than his previous diagnosis of a personality disorder.  
Kurta Questions 
    (1)  Did the applicant have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes, the applicant contends he was experiencing symptoms of PTSD that contributed to his misconduct. The applicant was diagnosed with a passive-aggressive personality disorder while on active service, and he has also been diagnosed with service-connected PTSD. 
    (2)  Did the condition exist or experience occur during military service?  Yes, the applicant contends he was experiencing symptoms of PTSD while on active that 
contributed to his misconduct. The applicant was diagnosed with a passive-aggressive personality disorder while on active service, and he has also been diagnosed with service-connected PTSD. 
    (3)  Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? Yes, there is sufficient evidence that the applicant was deployed to a combat environment, and he experienced a significant illness during his active service. There is also evidence the applicant was engaged in avoidant and erratic behaviors such as going AWOL, being tardy to work, having an apathetic attitude towards his peers and responsibilities, having poor military bearing, actions unbecoming of a noncommissioned officer, and manipulating his profile. These types of avoidant and erratic behaviors are often a natural sequalae to PTSD. It is recommended the applicant’s narrative reason for his separation be amended to Secretarial Authority. 
 
BOARD DISCUSSION:   
 
After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, 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 Board considered the applicant's statement, the applicant's record of service, the frequency and nature of the applicant's misconduct and the reason for separation. The applicant was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 13-4b, for personality disorder after his commander determined his character difficulties made effective duty unlikely and his diagnosis of passive aggressive personality disorder, and his lengthy history of poor work and social adaption. However, the Board considered the medical records, any VA documents provided by the applicant and the review and conclusions of the advising official. The Board concurred with the medical advisory opinion finding sufficient evidence to support the applicant had condition or experience that mitigated his misconduct, which would more accurately account for his behavior than his previous diagnosis of a personality disorder. Based on a preponderance of evidence, the Board determined it appropriate to change the reason for separation to Secretarial Authority with corresponding Separation and RE Codes  
 
  
BOARD VOTE:   
 
Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 
 
xx: xx: xx: GRANT FULL RELIEF 
 
: : : GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 
 
: : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING 
 
: : : DENY APPLICATION 
 
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 
 
In addition to the corrections addressed in Administrative Note(s) below, the Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant amendment of the ABCMR's decision in Docket Number AR1999021460 on 18 August 1999.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing him a DD Form 214 for the period ending 23 July 1981 showing. 
 
• Separation Authority: AR 635-200 

• Separation Code: JFF 

• Reentry Code: 1 

• Narrative Reason for Separation: Secretarial Authority 


 
  8/29/2023

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.  
 
ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S):   
 
A review of the applicant's record shows his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), for the period ending 23 July 1981, is missing important entries that affect his eligibility for post-service benefits. As a result, amend the DD Form 214 by adding the following entries to item 18 (Remarks):  SOLDIER HAS COMPLETED FIRST FULL TERM OF SERVICE 
 
REFERENCES:   
 
1.  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.  
 
2.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes), in effect at the time, provided the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the separation codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It identified "JBM" as the appropriate separation code for Soldiers separated due to "character or behavior disorder" under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-4b.  
 
3.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel. The version in effect at the time provided that:  Chapter 13 established policy and prescribed procedures for separating Soldiers for unsuitability. Paragraph 13-4 provided, in pertinent part, that an individual would be subject to separation if he or she exhibited behaviors of apathy (lack of appropriate interest), defective attitudes, and inability to expend effort constructively. While a lack of appropriate interest or other defective attitudes may be manifested in conjunction with physical defects or mental or organic diseases, including psychoneurosis, these traits are not necessarily produced by the physical or disease process. On the other hand, individuals considered for elimination may attempt to excuse immature, inadequate, and undisciplined behavior on the basis of minor or non-disabling illnesses. The presence of a physical or mental disease or defect-producing impairment of function insufficient to warrant separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-40 (Physical Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or Separation) and related regulations is no bar to discharge for unsuitability. An individual separated because of unsuitability was furnished an honorable or general discharge certificate as warranted by his or her military record.  
 
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 post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) criteria, detailed medical considerations and mitigating factors when taking action on applications from former service members administratively discharged under other than honorable condition (UOTHC) 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 FSM'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; Traumatic Brain Injury; 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, 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.  
 
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//