RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           7 April 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040006344


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

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Anderholm            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Eric N. Andersen              |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Linda M. Barker               |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation)
and item 27 (Reenlistment Code) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release
or Discharge from Active Duty) be changed to show he did not have a mental
disorder.  He also requests an explanation of why awards and
recommendations were removed from his records.

2.  The applicant stated, in a 25 March 1997 letter to his Congressman,
that in 1986 it was his objective to attend West Point and obtain a
commission in the Army.  He was 20 years old and had about 2 years of
college.  Not knowing how to accomplish that goal, he sought the advice of
a recruiter.  He met Staff Sergeant (SSG) G___ and trusted him because of
the uniform he was allowed to wear and the skin color they shared.  SSG
G___ told him he could not get into West Point because he had already begun
college and that "enlisted is the way you ought to go."

3.  The applicant stated that his Godfather and legal guardian told him he
should see what the Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) was about.  A
Professor of Military Science at the University of Akron offered him an
ROTC scholarship on the spot.  He decided to talk to SSG G___ about the
offer first.  SSG G___ told him that the way an officer obtains his
commission makes a big difference and that an ROTC officer gets no respect.
 SSG G___ suggested he apply for Officer Candidate School (OCS) once he got
in the Army and promised to help him with his OCS packet.  He trusted SSG
G___.

4.  The applicant stated that he got together a lot of documents and
recommendations to assist SSG G___ in preparing his OCS packet and went on
active duty.  He tried to talk with several noncommissioned officers at the
end of his basic training, but none of them were interested in hearing him
talk about how he was supposed to be getting orders to go to OCS.  He wrote
to SSG G___ twice but got no response.  At the end of his advanced
individual training he realized he had been deceived.  His company and
battalion commanders gave him recommendations for OCS and told him a copy
of the letters would be placed in his permanent military file (he recently
discovered that they were not in his file), but he had already been placed
on orders for Germany.

5.  The applicant stated that he attempted to apply for OCS while in
Germany but was told that no one could apply while overseas.  In addition,
he realized that his new unit mishandled government documents, made
promotions based on criteria not in the regulation, and practiced illegal
discrimination in respect to disciplinary actions.  In January 1989, he
went to the new company commander and told him he wanted out of the Army.
He was sent to a hospital to speak with Doctor G___.  He does not think the
psychiatrist had the time to thoroughly evaluate him.  There is no evidence
to support his diagnosis.  He was unaware of what was being done at the
time.  He just thought he could get an honorable discharge, go back to the
States, and get into ROTC.

6.  The applicant provides his separation packet.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 7 February 1989.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 19 August 2004.

2.  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 allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 November 1986 after
having completed two years of college.  He completed basic training and
advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational
specialty 29E (Radio Repairer).  He was assigned to the 586th Maintenance
Company, Germany on 21 August 1987.  He was promoted to Specialist Four, E-
4 on 15 November 1987.

4.  By letter dated 8 March 1988, the applicant was notified of assignment
consideration for the White House Communication Agency.  This letter is
filed in his Official Military Personnel File (OMPF).

5.  A Report of Mental Status Evaluation dated 3 November 1988 stated that,
based on the 31 October 1988 hospitalization of the applicant, he was
diagnosed with a personality disorder not otherwise specified, manifested
by issues of identity, an inability to form intimate relationships, and
immature and passive-aggressive traits.  The condition and problems
presented by the applicant were not, in the opinion of the examiner,
amenable to hospitalization, treatment, transfer, disciplinary action,
training or reclassification to another type of duty within the military.
It was unlikely that efforts to rehabilitate or develop him into a
satisfactory member of the military would be successful.

6.  On 12 December 1988, the applicant’s commander informed him that he was
initiating separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-
200, chapter 5-13 for a diagnosed personality disorder.  The commander
stated that a psychiatric evaluation indicated a mixed personality disorder
"manifested by issues of identity, an inability to form intimate
relationships, immature and passive-aggressive traits.  It is the opinion
of the examiner that your emotional instability has not been overcome and
continues to impair your judgment and reliability.  It is most unlikely
that efforts to develop you into a satisfactory member of the military will
be successful."

7.  On 15 December 1988, the applicant was advised by counsel of the basis
for the contemplated action to separate him for a diagnosed personality
disorder and its effects, of the rights available to him, and the effect of
any action taken by him in waiving his rights.  He elected not to submit a
statement in his own behalf.

8.  On 21 December 1988, the applicant's commander formally recommended
that the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation
   635-200, chapter 5-13.

9.  In an undated statement, the applicant's company commander indicated
that the applicant visited him on 4 November 1988 and requested to be
separated from the service because the military way of life was not for
him.  The applicant had been previously hospitalized for psychological
disorders.  In light of the discussion with the applicant, his support
chain, and medical evaluation results, the commander highly recommended
approval of the separation "request."

10.  On 27 December 1988, the appropriate authority approved the
recommendation and directed the applicant be issued an Honorable Discharge.


11.  On 7 February 1989, the applicant was discharged, with an honorable
characterization of service, in pay grade E-4, under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, chapter 5-13, personality disorder.  He had completed
      2 years, 2 months, and 24 days of creditable active service with no
lost time.  He was given a narrative reason of separation of "Personality
Disorder" and a reenlistment (RE) code of 4.

12.  On 22 March 1990, the applicant's DD Form 214 was corrected to change
his RE code to 3.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5, paragraph 5-13, sets the
policy and prescribes procedures for separating members with a personality
disorder (not amounting to a disability) that interferes with assignment to
or performance of duty when so diagnosed by a physician trained in
psychiatry and psychiatric diagnosis.

14.  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 U.S. 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.

15.  RE code 3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service,
but the disqualification is waivable.

16. Army Regulation 640-10 (Individual Military Personnel Records), in
effect at the time, controlled the filing of documents in military
personnel records.  It did not authorize the filing of letters of
recommendation in either the field Military Personnel Records Jacket or the
OMPF.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions have been noted; however, the evidence of
record shows he was evaluated by competent military medical authority and
found to have a personality disorder.  Even if he was "unaware" of the
intent behind the mental status evaluation, his commander notified him of
what the psychiatric evaluation indicated.  If he did not agree with the
findings of the evaluation, he had the opportunity to express his
disagreement at the time by submitting a statement.  However, he did not
take the opportunity to do so.

2.  The applicant's DD Form 214 properly reflects the narrative reason for
which he was separated.  His DD Form 214 was later corrected to show his RE
code as 3 – not qualified for enlistment but the disqualification is
waivable.

3.  The applicant does not indicate what awards were removed from his
records. The letters of recommendation for OCS he mentions were not
authorized for filing in his records.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 7 February 1989; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on            6 February 1992.  However, the applicant
did not file within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided
a compelling explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the
interest of justice to excuse failure to timely file in this case.
BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jea___  __ena___  __lmb___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate
the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board
determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis
for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




            __James E. Anderholm__
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040006344                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050407                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.02                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]