MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


	IN THE CASE OF:         


	BOARD DATE:              16 September 1998               
	DOCKET NUMBER:      AC96-08782

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.


Mr. Loren G. Harrell

Director

Mr. Joseph A. Adriance

Analyst


  The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Franklin R. Taylor

Chairperson

Ms. Karen J. Newsome

Member

Mr. Ted S. Kanamine

Member

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A -   Application for correction of military 
                              records
	Exhibit B -   Military Personnel Records (including
	                   advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his uncharacterized discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD); that the narrative reason be changed to family crisis, general, or breach of contract; and that his RE code be upgraded from 3 to 1.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he has written documentation from a psychiatrist that he does not, nor did he ever have, a personality disorder; that he would like the right to serve his country if needed; and that his discharge was unjust.

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

The applicant entered the Regular Army on 21 August 1990 for a period of 
3 years at the age of 18.

On 29 August 1990 the applicant indicated to his commander that he had received psychiatric treatment and was admitted to a mental health hospital earlier in the year for severe depression from which he was still suffering.  The applicant thought that he had not fully recovered and claimed he still had mental problems.  Based on this interview the commander referred the applicant to the mental health clinic for an evaluation.  

On 4 September 1990 the applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation which resulted in a diagnosis of “personality disorder not otherwise specified (Antisocial/Passive-Aggressive)”.  The evaluation found no evidence that the applicant was suffering from a mental disease, defect, or derangement sufficient to warrant medical disposition; and that the applicant was capable to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  The evaluating psychiatrist recommended that the applicant be removed from further emotional stresses involved in basic training and be processed for separation, under the provisions of paragraph 5-13, AR 635-200.  The evaluation also contained comments, to the effect that the applicant was not likely to be amenable to retraining; and that further stress could cause deterioration, and result in hospitalization, psychosis, suicide gestures or attempts, or other undesirable behavior.  In conjunction with the evaluation medical authorities issued the applicant a medical profile which indicated that the applicant was incapable of coping with the emotional stress of military training, and it further recommended that the applicant’s command take appropriate administrative action necessary to expedite the applicant’s elimination from military service.  The Army followed established standards and procedures for determining that the applicant was suffering from a personality or adjustment disorder.  The opinion or diagnosis label of the applicant’s physician, given now, does not change or call into question the application of standards used at the time of discharge.  
On 11 September 1990 the applicant’s unit commander, based on the request of the applicant, and the aforementioned psychiatric evaluation, initiated separation action on the applicant under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 5, paragraph 5-13.  The commander cited the reason for separation as the applicant’s personality disorder and recommended a description of service as uncharacterized, based on the applicant being in an entry level status.

On 11 March 1990, the applicant acknowledged that he had been notified by his commanding officer that his discharge was being recommended.  He consulted council, and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, completed his election of rights.  In this document the applicant waived his right to a hearing before a board of officers and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 19 September 1990 the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s discharge and directed his service be uncharacterized based on his entry level status.  Accordingly, on 24 September 1990 the applicant was discharged after completing 1 month and 4 days of active military service.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-13 provides, in pertinent part, the policy and procedure for separation of soldiers by reason of personality disorder, the service of a soldier separated per this paragraph will be characterized as honorable unless the soldier is in an entry level status, in which case a description of service of uncharacterized is required.

An uncharacterized description of service simply means that the soldier was in an entry level status, i.e., in an initial probationary period of service.  Any individual who has served for less than l80 days at the time his or her commander initiated separation action, and is not being separated for serious misconduct, will be given an uncharacterized discharge.  This is not an adverse separation action and denotes only that the individual had less than l80 days on active duty. 

Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) establishes the proper SPD code to be entered in item 26 of the DD Form 
214 based on the authority and reason for separation.  Based on this regulatory guidance the applicant was properly issued an SPD code of JFX.  Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned a reentry (RE) code, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Table 2-3 (SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table), AR 635-5 (Separation Documents) outlines the proper RE code assignment based on the SPD code issued.  Based on this guidance the applicant was correctly assigned an RE code of 3.  RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.  

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

1.  The evidence of record indicates the applicant raised the issue of his mental depression and his desire to be discharged with his commander.  The applicant was ultimately diagnosed with a personality disorder by competent medical authority who recommended he be processed for separation by administrative means.  The opinion or diagnosis label of a physician given now  does not change or call into question the application of standards used at the time of discharge.  The applicant, after consulting council and being advised of the basis for the separation action, raised no objections and elected not to contest the personality disorder diagnosis or the separation action. The Board was satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and that the rights of the applicant were fully protected through the separation process.  

2.  Army Regulation 635-200 establishes that a soldier separated for a personality disorder will be given an honorable characterization of service unless the soldier is in an entry level status, in which case a description of service of uncharacterized is required.  The soldier completed only 1 month and 4 days of active duty; therefore, he was properly given an uncharacterized description of service as required by regulation. 

3.  The Board concludes the applicant was correctly assigned an Reentry (RE) code of 3.  RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.  The applicant should contact a local Army recruiter for assistance in obtaining information on processing a waiver for reenlistment.

4.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

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

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




						Loren G. Harrell
						Director