APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of his military records by changing the reason for his discharge and his reentry eligibility (RE) code which would allow enlistment. In effect, this constitutes a request for removal or waiver of those disqualifications which preclude enlistment.

APPLICANT STATES : In effect, he believes that the reason for his discharge should be different from the one that he was given because they hadn’t counseled him nor did he receive an Article 15 under the Uniform Code of Military Justice before the doctors asked for a medical discharge. They gave him about five counselings on the same day using different dates. Also, he alleges that his commander kept him from a lawyer.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military and medical records show:

He was born on 11 November 1968. He completed 12 years of formal education. On 11 March 1987, he enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Delayed Entry Program, in pay grade E-1, for 8 years. On 5 May 1987, he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA), in pay grade E-1, for 3 years for training in military occupational specialty 94B10 (Food Service Specialist). He was sent to the Defense Language Institute (DLI), English Language Center, Lackland Air Force Base, Texas, on 12 May 1987.

A statement from the Mental Hygiene Clinic (MHC) to the applicant’s commander indicated, in effect, that the applicant was evaluated; that the applicant could distinguish right from wrong; that he could be considered responsible for his own actions; that he could participate in his own defense; that the applicant had reported six to seven episodes of chest pain during the last 3 weeks; that he was sad and anxious during the interview; that no thought disorder was noted; that poor English comprehension made testing results invalid; that motivation to complete “ESL” and “BMT” was ambivalent; that the commander may wish to remove him from strenuous activities until completion of
medical evaluation in case he had a cardiac condition; and that there should be a follow up at the MHC after completion of the medical evaluation.

A DA Form 4856-R (General Counseling Form), which the applicant signed on 18 August 1987, indicated that he was a good soldier; that the counselor had no problems with him; that his emotional attacks that he was getting were stopping his progress in the Army; that he had been seen by a doctor and there was nothing physically wrong; that he had been referred to Mental Hygiene because the attacks continued; and that, if he wanted to stay in the Army, he had to control his emotions (attacks).

A statement, dated 19 August 1987, from the MHC to the applicant’s commander indicated, in effect, that the applicant had a follow-up appointment that day; that the applicant stated that he was feeling very confined in the classrooms and barracks, was not getting along well at all with the other students, was verbally threatened on several occasions, was very unhappy, and was fearful of his safety; that he apparently had a very long history of great difficulty adjusting to stressful situations; that he preferred to be and performed best alone; that he was very anxious and was adjusting poorly to the Army; that his panic attacks were caused by his worry over being harmed physically and by the Army lifestyle to which he just didn’t respond well; that he was anxious, yet rational, oriented, and non-psychotic during the interview; and that he had a sense of pride and wanted to succeed at his endeavors, but based on his history of not getting along well and working well with others (which would be essential for a military career), his poor stress tolerance, and his long history of anxiety related problems, he was clearly not seen as an appropriate candidate for military service. An administrative discharge was strongly recommended at that time for the benefit of the Army.. The diagnoses were: panic disorder, adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features, occupational problem, and reported “SOB,” hyperventilation, and chest pains.

A DA Form 4856-R, which the applicant signed on 22 August 1987, indicated that he was counseled for the attack that he had in the school; that he knew that there was nothing wrong physically with him, but he kept having the attacks; that it seemed that every time that he got excited the attacks were the results; that he had to control his emotions; that separation action from the U.S. Army could be initiated if his academic performance/behavior continued; and that he could receive an entry level separation with a character of service as uncharacterized; however, the discharge authority would make the final determination.

A DA Form 4856-R, which the applicant signed on 25 August 1987, indicated that he was counseled regarding refusing to read in class when his teacher told him to do so; that his attitude was not of a good soldier; that he would be recommended to be dropped from the course; and that the applicant didn’t care since the psychiatrist recommended to send him home.

A DA Form 4856-R, which the applicant signed on 26 August 1987, indicated that the applicant was counseled that his continued substandard performance and lack in motivation signified that he had lost the total desire to become a soldier; that the applicant had experienced medical conditions which were diagnosed as panic attacks; that the applicant was referred to the MHC for those conditions; and that he would be recommended for an academic drop and be processed for an administrative separation.

A statement, dated 26 August 1987, indicated that the applicant would be removed from training effective after class on 26 August 1987 and referred to “LETE” for administrative hold pending a medical discharge.

Another DA Form 4856-R, which the applicant signed on 26 August 1987, indicated that the applicant was counseled that he was dropped from the DLI program because of his inability to take the pressures of the Army and the school, and that he would be moved to another platoon.
On 28 August 1987, the applicant’s commander advised him that he was initiating action to discharge him under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, for failure to adapt, and of his rights.

On 29 August 1987, the applicant was taken to the emergency room for an overdose of medication belonging to another soldier. He had taken approximately 20 to 25 Amitriptyline pills (which is a suppressant). It was logged as a suicide gesture.

On 1 September 1987, the applicant acknowledged notification of his proposed honorable separation from the U.S. Army. He indicated that he did not desire legal counsel; that he did not desire to make statements or submit a rebuttal in his own behalf; and that he did not desire to have a separation medical examination.

On 1 September 1987, the applicant’s medical records were reviewed, and he was cleared for separation.

On 2 September 1987, his commander submitted a request recommending that the applicant be discharged under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11. He indicated that the applicant arrived at the DLI on 12 May 1987; that, since his arrival, he had developed chronic anxiety related problems; that he excelled in English language training and scored 69 on his last “ECL;” that mental health evaluations determined that he had a adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features; that he was removed from training on 26 August; that this action was considered in light of safety for himself and for the safety of others; that the applicant displayed signs of elation when he received notification of the intent to recommend an administrative discharge; that he made a suicidal gesture by ingesting approximately 20 Amitriptyline pills on 29 August 1987; that it was a clear indication of his adjustment disorder and mixed emotional features; and that he strongly recommended the applicant’s immediate discharge for the safety of himself and for the good of the Service.

Subsequently, the applicant’s immediate discharge was approved since the documentation submitted in the case clearly showed a failure to adapt to the military, marked by panic stress attacks and a lack of reasonable effort on the applicant’s part.

The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) indicates that he was discharged on 11 September 1987, in pay grade E-1, under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 11-3a (entry level status performance and conduct). He had completed 4 months and 7 days active military service. He was given a reentry code of RE-3. His “Character of Service” was shown as “Entry level status.”

On 26 July 1968, the applicant was advised by the staff of the Board that he had to exhaust his administrative remedies by applying for a waiver through his local recruiter.

On 20 September 1993, the applicant was advised by the staff of the Board that he had to exhaust his administrative remedies by applying to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB).

On 21 November 1996, the ADRB determined that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable. However, it directed the records custodian to change the entry for “Character of Service” on the applicant’s DD Form 214 from “Entry level status” to “Uncharacterized.”

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 11 of that regulation, then in effect, provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel because of unsatisfactory performance or conduct (or both) while in an entry level status. This policy applied to individuals who had demonstrated that they were not qualified for retention because they could not adapt socially or emotionally to military life, or because they lacked the aptitude, ability, motivation or self-discipline for military service, or that
they had demonstrated characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service. For an entry level separation, “uncharacterized” was used for separation.

Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Army Regulation 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the RA and the USAR. Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment. That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes, including RA RE codes.

The reentry code of RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.

Recruiting personnel have the responsibility for initially determining if an individual meets current enlistment criteria. They are required to process a request for waiver under chapter 4 of Army Regulation 601-210 (RA and Army Reserve Enlistment Program). The Army enlistment standards depend upon the needs of the Army at the time of application for enlistment. There is no inherent right by a former soldier to be enlisted in the Army. The Army chooses its enlistees from among those best qualified to meet the Army’s requirements. A former soldier should periodically visit his or her local recruiting station so as to keep abreast of the changing recruiting needs of the Army. Although the applicant was previously advised by the staff of the Board to contact his local recruiter, there is no evidence that the applicant has applied through his recruiter for a waiver.

DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:


1. In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

2. The evidence of record indicates that the applicant was counseled on several different occasions; that he did not desire legal counsel; that he did not desire to submit a statement in his own behalf; and that he did not desire a separation medical examination.

3. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

4. The Board notes that the ADRB has directed that the applicant’s DD Form 214 be corrected to change the “Character of Service” to “uncharacterized.” Therefore, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

5. There appears to be no basis for removal or waiver of the disqualification(s) which established the basis for the RE code. The Board notes that the disqualification(s) upon which the RE code was based, however, can be waived for enlistment purposes.

6. In view of the circumstances in this case, the assigned reentry code was and still is appropriate.

7. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requests.

DETERMINATION : The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.



BOARD VOTE :

GRANT

GRANT FORMAL HEARING

DENY APPLICATION




                                                      Karl F. Schneider
                                                      Acting Director