RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        9 NOVEMBER 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060002518


      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:

|     |Ms. Margaret Patterson            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Robert Rogers                 |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Ernestine 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 records be corrected by changing his
reentry (RE) code from 3 to 1.

2.  The applicant states that he is trying to reenlist and has been unable
to get a waiver for his reenlistment code.  He feels that he was a good
Soldier, but had marital problems, that have now been resolved.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty) and statements from him and his wife
in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on
6 November 2001.  The application submitted in this case was received on
15 February 2006.

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 limitations 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 (RA) on 29 September 1999,
for a period of 4 years.  He served in Germany from May 2000 to May 2003.

4.  On 31 August 2001, a Military Police Report indicates that it had been
reported that the applicant had made suicidal gestures.  The applicant’s
wife reported that they were driving home when he exited their vehicle
while it was moving, and refused to get back in.  She went home and put the
groceries away and returned to pick him up.  The applicant had stopped at a
bridge span and climbed over the side of the bridge threatening to jump.
His wife was able to talk him into getting off the bridge and they retuned
home.  His chain of command was notified and he was transported by the on-
duty chaplain to the health facility for evaluation.


5.  On 24 August 2001, a Mental Status Evaluation determined that the
applicant met the retention standards prescribed in Army Regulation 40-501,
and had no psychiatric disease or defect that warranted medical board
processing.  However, criteria for administrative separation were present.
He was diagnosed with marital problems, adjustment disorder, not otherwise
specified (related to military service).  The diagnosis, which represented
a mental condition which manifests disturbances of emotional control, was
sufficiently severe that his ability to effectively perform military duties
was significantly impaired.  The condition and problems presented by the
applicant, in the opinion of the examiner, were not 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 the applicant into a
satisfactory member of the military would be successful.  Psychiatric
factors indicated that administrative separation was in the best interest
of the applicant and the military.

6.  On 10 September 2001, a medical examination cleared the applicant for
separation.

7.  On 14 September 2001, the applicant was counseled for having a physical
altercation with his spouse.  His wife reported that he had told her he
wanted a divorce and proceeded to attempt to burn her name off a tattoo on
his arm, but she was able to stop him.  A physical altercation ensued and
he placed her in a headlock and threw her to the ground.

8.  On 25 September 2001, the applicant acknowledged notification by his
commander that he was initiating action to separate him under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5, for an adjustment
disorder.  The reason for his commander’s proposed action was a mental
examination that determined he [the applicant] suffered from an adjustment
disorder.  His commander recommended he receive an honorable discharge.

9.  The applicant, after consulting with legal counsel, acknowledged that
he understood the rights available to him, requested legal representation,
and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  He also
acknowledged that he understood that the effects of receiving an under
other than honorable conditions characterization of service.  He also
acknowledged that he understood that he may be deprived of many or all Army
benefits and that he may be ineligible for many or all benefits
administered by the Veterans Administration, and that he may be deprived of
his rights and benefits as a Veteran under both Federal and State law.

10.  The applicant’s intermediate commander recommended approval of his
discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5, noting that separation
was best for the Army and the applicant.

11.  The appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s
discharge, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5, for
other designated mental or physical disorder, with the issuances of an
honorable characterization of service.

12.  The applicant was honorably discharged on 6 November 2001, under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, for other mental or physical
disorder.  He was assigned an RE code 3, and the separation code of JFV.

13.  The applicant submits unsigned letters from his wife and himself
attesting to his desire to return to the military.  He states that he and
his wife have learned from their mistakes, have grown up and their marriage
is better than ever.  His wife blames herself for many of their past
problems and states that they have a wonderful marriage, and that the
applicant should have been discharged on a marital hardship and not under a
physical or mental disorder.

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 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.

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

16.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 states that SPD codes are three-character
alphabetic combinations, which identify reasons for, and types of
separation from active duty.  The primary purpose of SPD codes is to
provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation.  They are
intended exclusively for the internal use of DOD and the military services
to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data.  It notes that
JFV is the appropriate SPD code for individuals involuntarily discharged
because of physical condition, not a disability.



17.  A "cross-reference" table, provided by officials from Separations
Branch at the U.S. Army Human Resources Command-Alexandria, confirms that
RE-3 is the appropriate RE code for individuals who are separated with an
SPD code of JFV.

18,  Army Regulation 601-210, which establishes the policies and provision
for enlistment in the Regular Army and United States Army Reserve, states
that RE codes may be changed only if they are determined to be
administratively incorrect.  Individuals who have correct RE codes may be
processed for a waiver at their request if otherwise qualified and a waiver
is authorized.  No requirement to change a RE code exists to qualify for
enlistment.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence confirms that the applicant’s RE code was assigned based
on the fact that he voluntarily separated under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5.  He received the appropriate RE code
associated with his discharge.

2.  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.

3.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 6 November 2001; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 5 November 2004.  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

__MP  ___  __RR ___  ___EF __  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.




                                  ____Margaret Patterson______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060002518                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061109                                |
|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.       |112.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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