MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 15 August 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002070941

         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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director
Ms. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson
Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Member
Mr. Jose A. Martinez		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 the reason and authority for his discharge be changed. He also requests that reconsideration be given to his former request for a change of his reentry (RE) code.

APPLICANT STATES: That his reason and authority for discharge and his RE-3 code should be changed to reflect his satisfactory continued participation in military training from 31 August 1977 to present. He states that he also completed a tour on active duty from 15 March 2001 through 5 December 2001, which included being deployed in support of Operation Imminent Danger. In support of his request he submits copies of documents currently maintained in his Official Military Personnel File and a copy of portions of Army Regulation
635-200.

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

He was inducted into the Army on 6 July 1964 and he was assigned to Fort Gordon, Georgia, for completion of his basic combat training and advanced individual training.

Nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant on 18 October 1964, for failure to repair. His punishment consisted of 14 days of restriction and extra duty.

On 26 October 1964, NJP was imposed against him for disobeying a lawful order by bringing alcoholic beverages into the company area. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay, 14 days of restriction and extra duty.

On 5 November 1964, the applicant underwent a psychiatric examination and was diagnosed as having an inadequate personality, chronic, severe; manifested by emotional instability, repeated outbursts of overemotional responses to minor environmental stresses, failure to control anxiety feelings, immaturity, episodes of bed-wetting, “nervousness,” tremulousness, loss of appetite, insomnia, failure to satisfactorily assimilate military subjects requiring recycling, and impaired insight and judgment. The psychiatrist noted that the applicant’s character structure appeared to be deeply ingrained and beyond the scope of rehabilitative efforts in a military environment. The psychiatrist indicated that he was mentally responsible and was able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right and that he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in administrative proceedings. The psychiatrist recommended that the applicant be administratively separated.






On 9 November 1964, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, for unsuitability. The commander cited a lack of motivation and self-understanding as a basis for his recommendation. He acknowledged receipt of the notification, and after consulting with counsel, he waived his right to have his case considered before a board of officers.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 17 November 1964. Accordingly, on 4 December 1964, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-209, for unsuitability and he was assigned an RE-3 code. He had completed 4 months and 29 days of total active service and he was furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

On 21 July 1977, the applicant’s discharge was upgraded to honorable under the Department of Defense Discharge Review Program.

On 31 August 1977, the applicant enlisted in the New York Army National Guard (NYARNG). He was honorably released from the NYARNG on 13 August 1997, and he was transferred to the United States Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement). He completed 19 years, 11 months and 13 days of service in the NYARNG.

A review of the records shows that on 15 March 2001, the applicant was ordered to active duty in support of Operation Joint Guard. He was honorably released from active duty on 5 December 2001, and he was transferred to the 340^th Military Police Company. He was mobilized for 8 months and 21 days.

On 29 March 2001, this Board directed that the two records of NJP be removed from his performance fiche and placed on his restricted fiche. However, the Board denied the portion of his request pertaining to a RE code change.

Army Regulation 635-209 set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel for unsuitability. That regulation provided, in pertinent part, that a member with a character or behavior disorder, disorder of intelligence, or transient personality disorder due to acute or special stress and was unlikely to develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and or become a satisfactory soldier, would be discharged for unsuitability.








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 Regular Army (RA) and the US Army Reserve. 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.

RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable. Certain persons who have received nonjudicial punishment are so disqualified, as are persons with bars to reenlistment, and those discharged under the provisions of chapters 9, 10, 13, and 14 of Army Regulation 635-200.

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 applicant was separated and assigned a reentry code in accordance with regulations then in effect and there is no basis for removal of the RE code from his record.

2. Although the disqualification upon which the code is based was waived for enlistment purposes, his records appropriately show that he was separated and assigned an RE-3 code.

3. The Board has considered the applicant’s military service since his discharge on 4 December 1964. The Board has also noted that his discharge was later upgraded. However, during that period of service, he was properly evaluated by a psychiatrist who diagnosed him as having a personality disorder. He was found to be unsuitable for continued service based on the information that he provided to the psychiatrist. The fact that he was able to overcome the disqualifications that made him unqualified for continued service is not a sufficient basis for changing the reason and authority for which the separation was based.

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 this 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

___inw___ __js____ __jm ____ DENY APPLICATION

                  Carl W. S. Chun
                  Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002070941
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	2002/08/15
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1964/12/04
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-209
DISCHARGE REASON	547
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 198	110.0000
2. 191	110.0200
3. 4	100.0300
4.
5.
6.