RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        8 SEPTEMBER 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040009833


      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             |
|     |Ms. Gale J. Thomas                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William Powers                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John Meixell                  |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Larry Olson                   |     |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 items 23 (type of separation), 25
(separation authority), 26 (separation code), 27 (reentry code), and 28
(narrative reason for separation) be corrected to permit him to return to
military service and secure employment with a law enforcement agency.

2.  The applicant states he was recently evaluated by a psychologist who
determined he did not meet the criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder
and believes the oral evaluation he underwent while in Germany was not
enough to diagnose an individual with this serious diagnosis.  He states
his current evaluation proves he never had posttraumatic stress disorder in
his life.

3.  The applicant states the adjustment disorder diagnosis was not caused
by the military but by other stressors and relates that it resulted from
marital problems and his new job.  He states he and his spouse have now
undergone counseling and their relationship is improving.  Regarding his
job related stress he notes he was impatient to get to his duties as a
military policeman and was disillusion in having to do details all the
time.  He states he was overzealous in making some bad decisions and asking
to be discharged from the Army.

4.  The applicant also states he never attempted suicide in Germany and
believes the doctor who was out-processing him misread the psychological
evaluation.  He states he values life and would never do anything to
shorten it and asks that the Board believe him when he says his thought
content at the time was normal.

5.  The applicant provides a copy of his undated report of medical
examination, a copy of a 14 June 2002 report to his commander from the
Chief, Inpatient Psychiatry, three counseling statements, a 30 July 2004
psychological evaluation, and three statements of support noting the
applicant would be an asset to any organization.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  In July 1994 the applicant enlisted in the Louisiana Army National
Guard but subsequently requested a hardship discharge because his father
was diagnosed with cancer and he was needed to support the family.
Ultimately, on 1 August 1995, he was discharged based on a defective
enlistment.  His service was


uncharacterized and he was not available to authenticate his separation
document.  The exact basis for the defective enlistment was not in records
available to the Board.

2.  In November 2000 the applicant again enlisted in the Louisiana Army
National Guard but subsequently requested discharge in order to enlist in
the Regular Army because of financial issues.  His request was denied, and
on 13 February 2001 he was discharged for failing to report for initial
entry training.

3.  Documents associated with the applicant's recent period of service in
the Regular Army, beyond those submitted by him, were not available to the
Board.  Information reconstructed from the documents provided by the
applicant indicates he entered active duty 17 October 2001.  He
successfully completed training as a military policeman in March 2002.

4.  The 14 June 2002 memorandum to the applicant's commander, from the
Chief, Inpatient Psychiatry, at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center,
indicates the applicant was diagnosed with adjustment disorder, not
otherwise specified, but related to military service, and posttraumatic
stress disorder (PTSD).  It noted his thought process was normal and that
the applicant denied thoughts of suicide at this time, but these thoughts
are greatly stimulated by being in the presence of weapons.  The physician
stated the applicant should avoid alcohol, weapons and munitions and that
while he met retention standards with no psychiatric disease that warranted
a medical board, criteria for an administrative separation was present.

5.  The applicant's undated report of medical examination noted an abnormal
psychiatric.  The evaluating physician indicated the applicant was normal
in his personal interview but had a definite psychiatric history with
recent hospitalization.  The evaluating physician noted the applicant's
suicidal ideations, recurrent suicidal attempts with depression and PTSD.

6.  An 18 June 2002 counseling statement notes the applicant was counseled
regarding the provisions of separation under Army Regulation 635-200,
Chapter 5 for the convenience for the government.  The document indicated
the applicant had revealed some personal issues that occurred prior to
joining the military and relayed he felt he could not overcome feelings to
cause harm to himself and that at times, while working with a military
policeman, he had thoughts of harming himself with his service pistol.  The
counseling document indicated the applicant was transported and treated at
Landstuhl Hospital and released on 14 June 2002.  It noted the hospital's
medical staff findings indicated the applicant should not be permitted to
handle any type of weapon or drink any type of alcoholic beverage.  The
statement indicated the applicant was being recommended for administrative
separation and that the applicant revealed he would like to be separated
from the military.  The applicant authenticated the counseling statement
and indicated that he agreed with the plan of action.

7.  On 10 July 2002 he was counseled because he was being assigned detail
duties in view of the fact that he was unable to carry a weapon and that as
such, he was an ineffective member of the unit.  The counseling sergeant
noted the mission of the unit required that individuals carry weapons.  The
applicant again acknowledged the counseling but this time made no comment.

8.  On 11 July 2002 the applicant was counseled again regarding a
recommendation for administrative separation under Army Regulation 635-200,
Chapter 5.  In that counseling it was noted the applicant performed fine
since the "incident was revealed" but that he stated he wanted to end his
military service and did not feel he should carry any type of weapon.  The
applicant indicated he was feeling fine now, but still felt uncomfortable
around weapons, and that at the moment he did not have any thoughts about
harming himself or others, but did have suicidal thoughts since the
incident identified on 14 June 2002.  He indicated that leaving the
military was the best thing for him.  He was advised about the basis for an
administrative separation under the provisions of paragraph 5-17 of Army
Regulation 635-200, including options available to him.  The applicant
authenticated the counseling statement and indicated he agreed.

9.  On 25 September 2002 the applicant was honorably discharged under the
provisions of paragraph 5-17, Army Regulation 635-200.  The narrative
reason for his separation was recorded in item 28 as physical condition,
not a disability.  He received a separation code of JFV and a reentry code
of 3.

10.  Subsequent to the applicant's separation, on 30 July 2004, he was
administered the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 and the
Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III, in addition to undergoing a
clinical interview.  The evaluating psychologist noted that this current
evaluation does not support a continued diagnosis of either an adjustment
disorder or PTSD.

11.  The three statements submitted in support of his request are from
individuals who indicated they knew and/or worked with the applicant and
indicated he would be an asset to any organization.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 establishes the policies and provisions for
the separation of enlistment Soldiers.  Paragraph 5-17 of that regulation
states that certain commanders may approve separation of an enlisted
Soldier for physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability and
excluding conditions more appropriate for separation processing under
paragraph 5-11 (separation of personnel who did not meet procurement
medical standards) or paragraph 5-13 (separation because of personality
disorder).  Paragraph 5-17 specifically provided for the separation of
enlisted Soldiers for disorders manifesting disturbances of perception,
thinking, emotional control or behavior sufficiently severe that the
Soldier's ability to effectively perform military duties is significantly
impaired.

13.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 prescribes the specific authorities
(regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the
separation of members from active military service, and the separation
codes to be used for these stated reasons.  It indicates that "Physical
Condition, Not a Disability" was the appropriate narrative reason for
discharge when the authority is Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17.
It also noted that JFV was the appropriate separation code.

14.  Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release
from active duty, individuals will be assigned reentry 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 United States Army Reserve.
Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribed basic eligibility for prior service
applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of armed forces
reentry (RE) codes.  RE-3 applies to persons who were not considered fully
qualified for reentry or continuous service at the time of separation,
including those discharged for physical or mental conditions not amounting
to a physical disability.

15.  A “cross-reference” chart, provided by officials from the separations
branch at the United States Army Human Resources Command-Alexandria,
confirms that “RE-3” is the appropriate RE code for individuals who receive
an SPD code of JFV.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although the documents associated with the applicant's administrative
discharge are not available to the Board, the documents provided by the
applicant suggest that his inability to carry or be around weapons likely
served as the basis for his commander's determination that separation under
the provisions of paragraph 5-17 of Army Regulation 635-200 was
appropriate.  The 10 July 2002 counseling statement which indicated the
applicant was no longer an effective member of the unit supports this
conclusion.

2.  Contrary to the applicant's contention that his recent psychological
evaluation proves he never had posttraumatic stress disorder in his life,
the report actually notes that the current evaluation did not support a
continued (emphasis added) diagnosis of either an adjustment disorder or a
more serious PTSD.  The report does not suggest the applicant never
suffered from either the adjustment disorder or PTSD.

3.  The source of the applicant's adjustment disorder, or his contention
that he was not suffering from PTSD, and had not attempted suicide would
not alter the basis for his discharge and in the absence of evidence to the
contrary it is presumed that his administrative discharge was accomplished
in compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The counseling
statements provided by the applicant suggest that he was involved in the
separation process and had in fact asked to be discharged.  It is
unfortunate that those decisions may now being impacting his employment
situation or his ability to return to military service.  However, neither
serves as a basis to change information correctly recorded on his
separation document.

4.  His 2002 separation document accurately reflects the appropriate
authority and narrative reason for the applicant's discharge, the
appropriate RE code, and the appropriate separation code based on his
separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17.

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

6.  As a matter of information, however, the applicant is advised that
although the Board has determined that his RE-3 and separation codes were
properly assigned; this does not mean that he is totally disqualified from
returning to military service.  The disqualification upon which the RE-3
code and separation code were based may be waived for enlistment purposes.
The applicant is advised that if he desires to enlist, he should contact a
local recruiter who can best advise him on his eligibility for returning to
military service.  Those individuals can best advise a former service
member as to the needs of the service at the time and may process
enlistment waivers for both the applicant’s RE code and his reason for
separation.  There is, however, no guarantee that his request for such a
waiver will be granted.
BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___WP__  ___JM  __  ___LO __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.





                                  _____ William Powers_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040009833                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050908                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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