IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  10 February 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100019740


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, upgrade of his reenlistment (RE) code.
  
2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was never told the reason for his discharge. He also states he recently found out he does not qualify for veteran's benefits and he would like his record correct so he can obtain qualification.

3.  The applicant provided no additional evidence.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA), for a 2 year term, on          20 December 1971.  On or about 4 January 1972, he was ordered to basic combat training at Fort Jackson, SC.

2.  On 12 February 1972, he was reported absent without leave (AWOL), and remained AWOL until 22 February 1972.

3.  On 24 February 1972, he was examined by competent medical authorities and was diagnosed with passive-aggressive personality, chronic and severe, manifested by passive obstructionism, poor motivation, and acting-out behavior. The examiner stated his maladaptive pattern of behavior reflected a long-standing, deeply ingrained personality disorder.  In the examiner's opinion, it was highly unlikely that further rehabilitative efforts, counseling, or punishment would have a beneficial effect on him.  The examiner determined he was free from mental defect, disease, or derangement, was able to distinguish right from wrong and adhere to the right, and had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.  He was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative or judicial action deemed appropriate by his command.

4.  The notification memorandum is not available for review; however, it appears he was notified he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212 (Personnel Separations – Discharge Unfitness and Unsuitability), chapter 6, paragraph 6b(2), for unsuitability, character and behavior disorders.  

5.  On 28 February 1972, he acknowledged receipt of the notification and, after consulting with counsel, he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

6.  On 1 March 1972, his commander recommended his discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212, chapter 6, paragraph 6b(2), for unsuitability, character and behavior disorders.  His commander cited his diagnosis of having character and behavior disorders as the basis for his recommendation.  

7.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on
8 March 1972.  Accordingly, on 13 March 1972, he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212.  His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) shows his character of service was under honorable conditions.  His DD Form 214 credits him with completing   2 months and 14 days of net active service during his period of active duty,     and 5 days of lost time.  His DD Form 214 shows the authority for separation,   as depicted in item 11c (Reason and Authority), as "AR 635-212 SPN 264," and shows his reenlistment code, as depicted in item 15 (Reenlistment Code), as "RE-3, 3B."

8.  On 17 June 1981, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded his discharge to honorable, voided his previous DD Form 214, and issued him a new DD Form 214.  His new DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows:

* item 25 (Separation Authority) – "Army Regulation 635-212"
* item 26 (Separation Code) – "JMB"
* item 27 (Reenlistment Code) – "RE3 – 3B"
* item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – "Unsuitability – Personality Disorder"

9.  Army Regulation 635-212, in effect at the time, set forth the policy and prescribed procedures for discharging enlisted personnel for unsuitability.  Action was to be taken to discharge an individual for unsuitability when, in the commander's opinion, it was clearly established that:  the individual was unlikely to develop sufficiently to participate in further military training and/or become a satisfactory Soldier or the individual's psychiatric or physical condition was such as to not warrant discharge for disability.  Unsuitability included inaptitude, character and behavior disorders, disorders of intelligence and transient personality disorders due to acute or special stress, apathy, defective attitude, and inability to expend effort constructively, enuresis, chronic alcoholism, and homosexuality.  Evaluation by a medical officer was required and, when psychiatric indications are involved, the medical officer must be a psychiatrist, if one was available.  A general or honorable discharge was considered appropriate.  Paragraph 27 provided that the DD Form 214 would be coded "RE-3," for all individuals, except those with over 18 years of active service, discharged under this regulation, so as to preclude reentry into the Army, unless authorized by appropriate authority.

10.  A Department of the Army Memorandum, dated 14 January 1977, and better known as the Brotzman Memorandum, was promulgated.  It required retroactive application of revised policies, attitudes and changes in reviewing applications for upgrade of discharges based on personality disorders.  A second memorandum, dated 8 February 1978, and better known as the Nelson Memorandum, expanded the review policy and specified that the presence of a personality disorder diagnosis would justify upgrade of a discharge to fully honorable except in cases where there was "clear and demonstrable reasons" why a fully honorable discharge should not be given.  Conviction by general court-martial or by more than one special court-martial was determined to be "clear and demonstrable reasons" which would justify a less than fully honorable discharge.

11.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army Reenlistment Program), dated       1 October 1980 and in effect at the time of his ADRB review, covered eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for processing applicants for enlistment in the RA and U.S. Army Reserve.  Paragraph 4-29 provided that RE Codes may be changed only if they are determined to be administratively incorrect.  Table 4-11 included a list of Armed Forces reenlistment eligibility codes, including RA RE Codes:  

   a. RE–1 applied to Soldiers who had completed their term of active service and were considered fully qualified to reenter the U.S. Army.  

   b. RE–3 applied to Soldiers who were not considered fully qualified for reentry or continued Army service at time of separation, but their disqualification was waivable.  These Soldiers were ineligible to reenlist without an approved waiver.

   c. RE–3B applied to Soldiers who were not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, because of lost time during their last period of service.  These Soldiers were ineligible to reenlist without an approved waiver.

   d. RE–4 applied to Soldiers separated from last period of service with a nonwaivable disqualification.  These Soldiers were ineligible to reenlist.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for an upgrade of his RE code has been carefully considered; however, there is insufficient evidence to support his request.

2.  His RE code was assigned based on the fact that he was separated due to unsuitability, character and behavior disorders, which was later referred to as personality disorders.  Army Regulations, in effect at the time, dictated that reenlistment code "RE-3" be assigned to Soldiers discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-212; therefore, his RE code is correctly shown on his DD Form 214.  Additionally, since he had lost time, he was also assigned RE-3B which is also correctly shown on his DD Form 214

3.  The ABCMR does not correct records solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for other programs or benefits.  The applicant is advised that if he desires to reenter military service, 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 the applicant’s RE code.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__X_____  ___X____  ____X___  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.



      _______ _ X  _______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090000724



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100019740



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1