RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        18 July 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050018129


      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. Lester Echols                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick H. McGann             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Ernestine I. Fields           |     |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 his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code on
his National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of
Service) be changed to RE code 1.

2.  The applicant states he had requested a meeting with Major General L___
so he could show his Power Point Presentation for his 12 new Defense
Systems to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  He went through his chain of
command, but several officers had been sent to Iraq and he had to wait.  He
was denied the chance to meet with the general because of his sergeant
major.  If Major General L___ had seen his Power Point Presentation, the
applicant would be working in the Pentagon.  He has met and talked with
several senior Army officers, mostly colonels, who have known this sergeant
major for many years.  They all responded that they despise him and hate
him for destroying good Soldiers.  The sergeant major sent him to the same
doctor that all the others have been sent to.

3.  The applicant states that what he does, after hours, enjoying his
special professional hobbies has nothing to do with his jobs and has never
been a problem until this situation.  His main hobby is a web site he
created the day he returned from Vietnam.  No one has the right to tell him
he cannot do [something] or that he is wrong [when it comes to his
hobbies].

4.  The applicant provides an NGB Form 22 for the period ending 30 November
2004; a DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) for the period
ending 20 March 1979; copies of his U. S. Marine Corps (USMC) records; a
job offer letter from Sperry Univac dated 30 March 1979; one page of a
Headquarters, USMC letter dated 6 February 1980 acknowledging he will
perform duties as directed by Sperry Univac Computer Systems for the USMC;
a job offer letter from Martin Marietta Aerospace dated 10 July 1981; three
certificates of training, dated 23 November 1981, 8 January 1982, and 13
July 2004; a job offer letter from Northern Telecom dated 30 April 1982;
three certificates of completion, dated 27 August 1982, 8 October 1982, and
13 July 2004; and a job offer letter from KT Consulting dated 1 March 2004.

5.  The applicant also provides a Combat Lifesaver Course subcourse
completion certificate; a SmartPay Travel Card certificate of training; a
Defensive Driving certificate of completion; two letters of thank you,
dated 9 and 18 August 2004; a 12 August 2004 letter to Senator Murray and a
17 February 2005 letter to Senator Cantwell; a 25 August 2004 letter to the
President; a certificate certifying
the applicant is a member of the U. S. Naval Institute; a certificate of
corporate membership; 14 certificates of independent study course
completion from the Federal Emergency Management Agency; a resume; 3 pages
of “VIPER” Terrorist Terminator Projects; and 5 pages of Anti-Terrorist
Research/Studies.

6.  The applicant also provides a certificate of appreciation from The
Planetary Society and seti@home; an email dated 7 May 2004; a letter of
appreciation dated 9 August 1999; an undated letter of thanks from Skagit
Symphony; an undated letter of recommendation from Pacific North West Money
Management; a document entitled “US Army National Guard”; a document
entitled “Defense Plan Approach April 2004;” a document entitled “(the
applicant) Former USMC/Designer Suggestion to Protect:  US Military Bases”;
his birth certificate; a listing of courses he has apparently completed and
professional licenses and certificates he holds; a document dated 20
October 2003 listing his military occupational specialties and civilian
employments; copies of seven licenses; his Army National Guard (ARNG)
enlistment contract; and his ARNG Honorable Discharge Certificate.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant was born on 19 November 1951.  He served in the USMC
Reserve from 6 January 1971 through 20 March 1973 and in the Regular USMC
from 21 March 1973 through 20 March 1979 when he was honorably discharged.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Washington State Army National Guard
(WAARNG) on 31 March 2004.

3.  On 6 June 2004, the applicant was given a physical profile for a left
knee injury.  He was apparently referred for a psychological consult at
that time.

4.  On 6 July 2004, the applicant’s rear detachment officer in charge (OIC)
requested a formal mental health evaluation be conducted on the applicant.
The OIC indicated he was concerned about the applicant’s ability to
separate fact from fiction and cited the applicant’s personal web site
which describes his research and experience with Unidentified Flying
Objects (UFOs) as one reason for his concern.

5.  On 11 July 2004, the applicant acknowledged he had the right to request
advice from an attorney; had the right to submit a complaint to the
inspector general if he perceived that referral for a mental health
evaluation was not
justified; and had the right to be evaluated by a Mental Health
professional of his own choosing to include a civilian (at his own expense)
in addition to a military Mental Health professional.

6.  On 26 July 2004, a clinical neuropsychologist diagnosed the applicant
with either a bipolar disorder, not otherwise specified; or a
schizoaffective disorder.  On 17 September 2004, the applicant was given a
physical profile for a psychotic condition.

7.  On 30 November 2004, the applicant was honorably discharged from the
WAARNG and as a Reserve of the Army under the provisions of National Guard
Regulation 600-8, paragraph 8-26j(1) for being medically unfit for
retention.  He was given an RE code of 3.

8.  National Guard Regulation 600-200, chapter 8 states that RE codes are
determined at discharge.  They provide information concerning the Soldier’s
service in the Army National Guard of the United States which will be
considered upon future reenlistment.  RE code 3 is assigned when a Soldier
is eligible for reentry only with a waiver.  Paragraph 8-26j(1) states
that, when the reason for discharge is medically unfit for retention, then
RE code 3 will be given.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contentions that he was denied the chance to meet with
Major General L___ because of an unnamed sergeant major; that the sergeant
major, in effect, destroyed his career; and that the sergeant major sent
him to the same doctor that all the others (i.e., all the other Soldiers
the sergeant major destroyed) were sent to, have been carefully considered.


2.  However, the evidence of record shows the applicant’s rear detachment
OIC requested a formal mental health evaluation on the applicant, not a
sergeant major.  It is also noted that the applicant acknowledged his right
to be evaluated by a Mental Health professional of his own choosing to
include a civilian in addition to a military Mental Health professional.

3.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is presumed the
applicant was evaluated by competent military medical personnel and was
properly diagnosed with a medical condition that did not meet retention
standards.  Therefore, he was appropriately separated and given an RE code
of 3.

BOARD VOTE:

__le____  __phm___  __eif___  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  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.




                                  __Lester Echols_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050018129                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060718                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |100.03                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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