IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    8 May 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110021769 


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 change of his reentry eligibility (RE) code from RE-3 to RE-1.  He also requests to personally appear before the Board.

2.  The applicant states he wishes to appear before the Board to plead his case on the events that led to his discharge from the Army and left him with an RE-3 code.  He contends that while serving in Europe, he was under a commander's order to undergo a psychiatric evaluation.  After three or four visits, he was diagnosed with a personality disorder.  His commander then initiated a discharge action that at the time he was unaware he could object to.  He has plenty of evidence to show there is nothing wrong with him that would prohibit his continued service.  He continues that he believes he was discharged under false pretenses and he would like to persuade the Board to allow him to reenter the military.  He hopes to one day be a doctor in the Army in order to assist his fellow Soldiers.

3.  The applicant provides Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Progress Notes, dated 20 June 2011.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  With prior enlisted active service in the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC), the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 August 2008.  He completed initial entry training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 88M (Motor Transport Operator).

2.  On 26 April 2009, he underwent a mental status examination and he was diagnosed with an adjustment disorder, personality disorder not otherwise specified (NOS), and pain, per patient report.

3.  The examining psychologist indicated the applicant was seen at his request regarding his desire for a separation from the Army.  This was supported in April 2009 and he had been on modified duty since that time.  He had not deployed and did not have a traumatic brain injury (TBI).  He was able to distinguish right from wrong and was responsible for his behavior.  Two mental health providers concurred that he had multiple adjustment issues that precluded him from performing required duties as a Soldier.  He had been separated from another branch of service and the same issues emerged at his arrival at his first duty station in the Army.  There were no acute safety issues and he was not eligible for a medical board.  Continued adjustment issues were anticipated and separation was recommended.  The applicant was in favor of a separation.

4.  On 1 February 2010, he underwent a second mental status examination and he was diagnosed with adjustment and personality disorder, NOS.

5.  The examining psychologist indicated there were no indications of post traumatic stress disorder or TBI.  The applicant was aware and responsible for his actions and there were no psychiatric conditions that would preclude him from understanding right from wrong.  Inconsistencies in presentation to report, combined with prior documentation of a personality disorder, would predict that ongoing behavioral difficulties could be anticipated.  He was not deployable in his current state and separation from the service was recommended after interview, review of medical record, and review of his previous discharge from the USMC.

6.  His immediate commander initiated separation action against him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 5-13, by reason of personality disorder with an honorable discharge.  The immediate commander indicated as the reasons for the proposed separation the fact that the applicant had been evaluated and diagnosed by a licensed psychologist as having a personality disorder and adjustment disorder and that he was reevaluated and diagnosed by a licensed psychiatrist as having a personality and adjustment disorder, NOS.

7.  On 8 March 2010, he acknowledged receipt of the notification of his pending separation action.  He was advised of his right to consult with counsel prior to submitting his election of rights.

8.  On 30 March 2010, he was advised by counsel of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation, paragraph 5-13, for personality disorder and its effects, of the rights available to him; and of the effect of any action taken by him to waive his rights.  He understood that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge is issued to him.  He also understood that if he received a discharge that is less than honorable, he may apply to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to upgrading; however, he realizes that an act of consideration by either board does not imply his discharge will be upgraded.  He elected not to submit any statements in his own behalf.

9.  The applicant's immediate commander submitted the applicant's proposed separation action through the chain of command.  The brigade commander, having considered all matters, recommended the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13 with an honorable discharge.

10.  An administrative law attorney from the installation Office of The Staff Judge Advocate reviewed the proposed separation action and found it legally sufficient.

11.  The appropriate authority approved the separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13 and directed the applicant receive an honorable characterization of service.  On 23 April 2010, he was discharged accordingly.

12.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued at the time shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, by reason of personality disorder.  He was assigned a separation code of JFX and an RE code of 3.

13.  He provided VA Progress Notes that show he was examined by a psychiatrist on 20 June 2011 and he was found mentally fit by that agency to reenlist.

14.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (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 states that the SPD code JFX is the appropriate code to assign to Soldiers separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of personality disorder.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table stipulates that an RE-3 code will be assigned to members separated under these provisions with an SPD code of JFX.
15.  Army Regulation 635-200 further states 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 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program), covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the RA and the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR).  Table 3-1 included a list of the RA RE codes:

	a.  RE-1 applies to Soldiers completing their term of active service who are considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army.  They are qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met.

	b.  RE-3 applies to Soldiers who are not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waivable.  They are ineligible for enlistment unless a waiver is granted.

16.  Army Regulation 15-185 (ABCMR) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army, acting through the ABCMR.  Paragraph 2-11 states applicants do not have a right to a hearing before the ABCMR.  The Director or the ABCMR may grant a formal hearing whenever justice requires.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Evidence shows the applicant was examined by two mental health professionals who diagnosed him with a personality disorder and recommended his separation from the service.  Evidence further shows his discharge proceeding were conducted in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and there is no indication of procedural errors that would have jeopardized his rights.

2.  He was discharged due to a personality disorder and he was assigned an SPD code of "JFX" based on his reason for discharge with the corresponding
RE code of 3.

3.  The post-service medical documentation provided by the applicant indicates he was found mentally fit by the VA to reenter military service.  However, this documentation is insufficient evidence to overturn the recommendations of competent Army medical personnel.

4.  The applicant is advised that RE-3 applies to persons who are not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service; however, it does allow for a waiver of the disqualification.  Therefore, if he desires to enlist, he should remain 

in contact with local recruiting personnel who can best advise former service members as to the needs of the Army at the time and are required to process waivers of RE codes.

5.  The applicant’s request for a personal appearance hearing was also carefully considered.  However, by regulation, an applicant is not entitled to a hearing before the Board.  Hearings may be authorized by a panel of the Board or by the Director of the ABCMR.  In this case, the evidence of record and independent evidence provided by the applicant is sufficient to render a fair and equitable decision at this time.  As a result, a personal appearance hearing is not warranted to serve the interest of equity and justice in this case.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's requested relief.

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)                                         AR20110021769



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110021769



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1