RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  7 June 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060016393 


	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. Gerard W. Schwartz

Acting Director

Mr. John J. Wendland, Jr.

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Ms. Carmen Duncan

Chairperson

Mr. Michael J. Flynn

Member

Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann

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 correction of her Reentry Eligibility (RE) Code.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that since her discharge from the Army she has seen other mental health professionals and her condition no longer exists.  The applicant also states, in effect, that she is trying to reenlist in the Army.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), with an effective date of 15 April 2003; Medical Record Progress Notes (5 pages), dated 20 November 2003; Counseling Associates of Greenville, Greenville, Texas, letter, dated 23 September 2005; and a Psychological Evaluation (7 pages), dated 29 July 2004.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which occurred on 15 April 2003, the date of her discharge from the Army.  The application submitted in this case is dated 13 November 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 service records show that she enlisted and entered active duty in the Regular Army (RA) on 5 September 2000 for a period of
3 years.  Upon completion of basic combat training and advanced individual training, the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 12C (Bridge Crewmember).  On 1 October 2002, she was promoted to the rank of specialist/pay grade E-4.

4.  On 28 March 2003, the applicant's commander notified her that she was initiating action to separate the applicant under the provisions of Chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of a personality disorder.  On 28 March 2003, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of separation action and that she had been advised of her right to consult with counsel.  The applicant indicated that she declined the opportunity to consult with counsel.  On 7 April 2003, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge and directed the issuance of an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

5.  The applicant's military service records contain a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), with an effective date of 15 April 2003. This document shows that the applicant was honorably discharged on 15 April 2003 and, at the time of her discharge, had completed 2 years, 7 months, and
11 days net active service.  This document also shows, in pertinent part, that the separation authority was Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-13, and the reason for her separation was "personality disorder."  Based on the authority and reason for her separation, the applicant was assigned a Separation Program Designator (SPD) Code of JFX and an RE Code of RE-3.

6.  On 25 September 2004, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) indicating that she believed the diagnoses that were the basis for her discharge were false.  In support of the applicant's application to the ADRB she now provided the same 7-page Psychological Evaluation, dated 29 July 2004, that she provides with her application to this Board.  On 22 June 2005, the ADRB concluded that the applicant's discharge by reason of personality disorder was both proper and equitable and, by unanimous vote, decided that no change be made to the reason and characterization of her discharge.

7.  In support of her application, the applicant provides a copy of her Medical Record Progress Notes, Mental Health Evaluation Report, dated 20 November 2003, prepared by the Adult Nurse Practitioner (ANP) who conducted the evaluation on 17 November 2003.  This document shows, in pertinent part, that the applicant sought the psychiatric evaluation in order to enter the U.S. Marine Corps through the Reserve Officers’ Training Course.  The report provides the medical history of the applicant and shows that the ANP indicated that "this mental health history was completed after one meeting with [the applicant]", that "little collaborating information was provided with limited elaboration", and "[a]t the time of this interview, [the applicant] did not appear significantly depressed."  The letter from the Counseling Associates of Greenville shows that the applicant was counseled by a Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC), on 7 September 2005 and 14 September 2005, who determined that she did not meet the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) (which is the standard classification of mental disorders used by mental health professionals in the United States) criteria that would warrant a psychiatric diagnosis at that time.  The Psychological Evaluation the applicant provides includes her medical history and an objective inventory of her adult personality and emotional states, which does not appear to meet the diagnostic criteria for a major personality disorder.  However, the applicant's personality profile did suggest certain personality traits and coping style that could compromise her emotional and interpersonal functioning during periods of stress. The LPC concludes his evaluation by stating, in pertinent part, "[m]ilitary service often includes unpredictable circumstances that are particularly challenging for individuals who depend significantly on a sense of control."  He also states, "[u]ltimately, these findings and my opinion need to be considered relative to her prior service and the circumstances of her discharge."

8.  Army Regulation 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.  It identifies the SPD Code of JFX as the appropriate code to assign RA enlisted Soldiers separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, based on personality disorder.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table establishes RE-3 as the proper RE Code to assign Soldiers separated with an SPD Code of JFX.

9.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program) provides, in pertinent part, 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.  RE-3 applies to persons who are not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at the time of separation, but the disqualification is waivable.

10.  Army Regulation 601-210 further provides, in pertinent part, that RE codes are used for administrative purposes only, and that applicants should be advised that RE codes are not to be considered derogatory in nature, they simply are codes used for identification of an enlistment processing procedure.  This document also provides procedures for the verification of an applicant's prior service.  (Applicants who are former members of the U.S. Armed Forces are categorized as prior service personnel.  The applicant's military records show that she qualifies as prior service.)

11.  Army Regulation 601-210 also prescribes eligibility criteria governing the enlistment of persons, with or without prior service (PS), into the RA and the USAR.  Paragraph 3-20 (Verification of prior service) provides, in pertinent part, that applicants who are thought to have had, or who claim to have had PS in any U.S. Armed Force will not be enlisted in the RA or USAR until their PS, if any, is verified.  Authorized personnel with access to the Defense Management Data Center via the Recruiter Eligibility Data Display may obtain reentry eligibility data.

12.  Army Regulation 601-210 also provides that applicants who do not meet established enlistment standards are not eligible for enlistment unless a waiver is authorized.  Recruiters do not have the authority to disapprove a waiver request or to refuse to forward an applicant's request to the approval authority. Commanders cited in this regulation have the authority to approve waivers as appropriate.  The burden is on the applicant to prove to waiver authorities that he or she has overcome their disqualifications for enlistment and that their acceptance would be in the best interests of the Army.  Waiver authorities will apply the "whole person" concept when considering waiver applications.  Unless indicated otherwise in the regulation, requests for waiver and other actions that require approval by the Commanding General, U.S. Army Human Resources Command (USA HRC), Alexandria, Virginia (for the RA); Commander, USA HRC, St. Louis, Missouri (for the USAR); or Commanding General, U.S. Army Recruiting Command (USAREC), will be forwarded by the recruiter to the appropriate email address.  Every effort will be made to ensure capture of the electronic record of waiver starting at the recruiting station level.

13.  The governing Army regulation further provides that, prior service Army personnel will be advised that RE codes may be changed only if they are determined to be administratively incorrect.  Applicants who have correct
RE codes will be processed for a waiver at their request if otherwise qualified and waiver is authorized.  No requirement exists to change an RE code to qualify for enlistment.  Only when there is evidence to support an incorrect RE code or when there is an administrative error will an applicant be advised to request a correction.  This document provides, "Request for a waiver action will automatically trigger an RE code review.  Otherwise, when it appears that the
RE code is incorrect, an applicant may request correction by sending a written explanation, DD Form 214, and evidence to support the claim to Commander, U.S. Army Human Resources Command, Enlisted Personnel Management Division, 2461 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia  22331-0451."

14.  There is no evidence in the applicant's military service records that shows she applied for a waiver of her RE Code to reenter the U.S. Army and/or that her request was denied.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s request for change to the RE-3 code she received in conjunction with her discharge from the Army was carefully considered.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s RA separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation, all requirements of law and regulation were met, and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

3.  A review of the applicant's discharge by the ADRB determined that her discharge was both proper and equitable as to the characterization and reason for discharge.

4.  The evidence of record shows the RE Code (i.e., RE-3) that the applicant received was appropriately assigned based on the authority and reason for her separation.  In addition, the ADRB determined that the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, was proper and equitable.  As a result, the assigned RE Code of RE-3 was and remains valid.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to correction of her records.

5.  The evidence of record indicates that one reason the applicant may be requesting change to her RE Code is in order to reenter the U.S. Army.  In this regard, if this is so, the evidence of record shows that individuals, including prior service personnel, who desire to enlist in the U.S. Armed Forces should contact a local recruiter to determine their eligibility and/or request assistance in processing a request for waiver through appropriate administrative channels.

6.  Accordingly, the applicant is advised that, although no change is being recommended to her RE Code, this does not mean that she is disqualified from enlistment in the U.S. Army, as the RE-3 code she was assigned is waivable.  If the applicant desires to enlist in the U.S. Army or another branch of service, she should contact a local recruiter to determine her eligibility and/or request assistance in processing a waiver through appropriate administrative channels to enter the U.S. Armed Forces.  Those individuals can best advise a prior service member as to the needs of the Service and are required to process waivers of RE codes.

7.  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.

8.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 15 April 2003; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on
14 April 2006.  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

___CD___  ___MJF_  ___JCR__  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.




 ____Carmen Duncan_____
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060016393
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
2007/06/07
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
HD
DATE OF DISCHARGE
20060415
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR 635-200, Paragraph 5-13
DISCHARGE REASON
Personality Disorder
BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
Mr. Schwartz
ISSUES         1.
103.0100.0000
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.