RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  1 March 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060009104 


	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.  




Acting Director



Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:




Chairperson


Member



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, in effect, that the reentry (RE) code assigned upon his separation from active duty on 20 September 1988 be changed or left blank.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was not given any options regarding the RE code assigned to him on 20 September 1988, nor was he informed of the damaging effects that having an RE code “3” would have on his reenlistment.  He also states that he was not given adequate counseling for some one in his position.

3.  The applicant states that he enlisted in the Junior Reserve Officer Training Course during his junior year in high school as it seemed like the only thing to do. He indicates that his father and two older brothers were in the Army and he wanted to live up to his family expectations by becoming the first commissioned officer in his family.  He states that while he was in basic training and advanced individual training, his fiancée called him continually, informing him of things that were needed back at home.  He states that while he was home on leave he told everyone that he needed their support and to stop asking him for everything.

4.  The applicant also claims that at his brother’s advice, he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) in hopes of having a better chance of acceptance into the Officer Candidate School (OCS), and he signed up for airborne training.  He states that he had emergency surgery to have one testicle removed one week prior to reporting for Airborne Training, and he did not think to bring any documentation to his airborne training to inform officials of his recent surgery.  He states that the surgery site became infected and he was forced to sit out of the remainder of the course, thus causing his failure of the airborne course.  He was subsequently reassigned to Panama and further assigned to Honduras.  He indicates that his fiancé was not pleased with his assignment and their relationship began to deteriorate to the point that she eventually left him for someone who was more supportive.  He further indicates that he was told that his uncle had cancer, and after his death, he was unable to attend the funeral.  

5.  The applicant further claims his failure to become an officer; complete airborne training; his fiancé’s suicide attempt and his surgery, and the overwhelming pressure to succeed caused him to withdraw himself from everything and everybody.  He also claims that at the suggestion of his noncommissioned officer in charge (NCOIC) he went to see a Psychologist and told him everything that was going on in his life.  He claims that it was this action that resulted in his being processed for elimination from the Army.

6.  The applicant states a lot has changed since his discharge and he is no longer a young naïve, immature teenager, but a responsible father of two boys, a college student in his senior year, and an 11 year old employee at the Children’s Surgery Center.  He states that he would like to have his RE code changed to allow him to reenlist in the Army and continue what he once started on a positive note.

7.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement, five character references, Application for Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States (DD Form 293), and a copy of his 20 September 1988 separation document 
(DD Form 214) in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice that occurred on 20 September 1988, the date of his separation.  The application submitted in this case is dated 14 June 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's military records show he initially enlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) on 2 January 1987.  He entered active duty to complete his initial active duty for training (IADT) on 1 July 1987.  He completed IADT on 17 November 1987, and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 52D (Power Generation Equipment Repairer), and was released from active duty (REFRAD) and returned to his USAR unit.  

4.  On 18 May 1988, the applicant was honorably discharged from the USAR for the purpose of enlisting in the Regular Army (RA), and on 19 May 1988, he enlisted in the RA and entered active duty in that status.  

5.  The applicant’s record does not contain the specific facts and circumstances pertaining to his separation processing.  However, he provides a properly constituted DD Form 214, which confirms the authority and reason for his discharge.

6.  On 20 September 1988, the applicant was honorably separated after completing 4 months and 2 days of his enlistment and a total of 8 months and 
20 days of active military service.  

7.  The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant upon his 20 September 1988 separation shows he was separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-13, Army Regulation 635-200, and that the narrative reason for his separation was “personality disorder.”  This document also confirms that he was assigned a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JFX and an RE code of RE-3.  The applicant authenticated this document with his signature in Item 21 (Signature of Member Being Separated) on the date of his separation.  

8.  The applicant provides five character references from individuals who all support his request and attest to his high moral and ethical character, and to his trustworthiness.  

9.  The applicant also provides a DD Form 293 with his request, in which he claims that he was told that he would receive a medical discharge under honorable conditions.  He also repeats that he was not told how his RE code would affect his ability to reenlist, nor was he legally represented.  He states that had he been given the option, he would have elected to remain on active duty.

10.  Army Regulation (AR) 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.  The SPD code of JFX is the appropriate code to assign Soldiers separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-13, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of personality disorder.  Additionally, Table 2-3 (SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table) establishes RE-3 as the proper reentry code to assign to Soldiers separated with a SPD code of JFX.

11.  AR 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the United States Army Reserve (USAR).  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 completing their terms of service who are not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at the time of separation but the disqualification is waivable.


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that the RE code assigned to him at the time of his discharge should be changed to allow him to reenlist in the Army, and the supporting documents he provided were carefully considered.

2.  The applicant’s record is void of the specific facts and circumstances concerning events that led to his discharge from the Army.  However, the record does contain a properly constituted DD Form 214, which confirms that he was separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-13, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of “personality disorder” and that he was assigned a SPD code of JFX and a corresponding RE-3 code.  The applicant authenticated the DD Form 214 with his signature, thereby verifying that the information contained on the separation document was correct at the time it was prepared and issued. 

3.  The applicant was or should have been aware of the basis for the RE-3 code assignment at the time of his separation, as evidenced by his signature on the DD Form 214.  Lacking independent evidence to the contrary, it is presumed that all requirements of law and regulation were met, the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process, and the RE-3 code assignment was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations. 

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.  The applicant is advised that although no change is being recommended to his RE code, this does not mean that he is disqualified from reenlistment.  The RE-3 code he was assigned applies to persons who are not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at the time of separation, but the disqualification is waivable.  Therefore, if the applicant still desires to reenlist, he should contact a local recruiter to determine his eligibility.  Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 20 September 1988.  Therefore, the time for him to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 19 September 1991.  However, he failed to 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

__TMR __  __JCR __  __JRH __  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.




_____Thomas M. Ray____
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060009104
SUFFIX

RECON
NO
DATE BOARDED
2007/03/01
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
HD
DATE OF DISCHARGE
1988/09/20
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR 635-200
DISCHARGE REASON
Personality Disorder
BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
Mr. Schwartz
ISSUES         1.
110.0200
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.