IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  2 October 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110025009 


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 reconsideration of the Board's denial of his previous request that his National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) be amended to reflect:

	a.  a narrative reason for separation of other than medical;

	b.  a more favorable reentry eligibility (RE) code;

	c.  correspondence courses shown on the Army/American Council on Education Registry Transcript System (AARTS) transcript he provides; and

	d.  the National Defense Service Medal and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal.

2.  He makes the following statements in response to the Board's original record of proceedings.

	a.  The Board denied adding the requested awards to his record because it claimed he did not specify which awards he wanted added.  On the contrary, he stated in his application that upon completion of One Station Unit Training (OSUT) he was issued the Army Service Ribbon, National Defense Service Medal, and the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal.


	b.  The Board denied adding education to his record because it claimed he did not specify which training.  On the contrary, he provided the attached AARTS transcript showing training he had completed.

	c.  The Board stated that "a memorandum, dated 19 March 2007, states after careful review of medical documentation provided …."  However, there was never any "medical documentation" provided during his discharge processing, so how could any of it have been "carefully reviewed?"  This is why he should never have been discharged because there was no evidence or documentation to support it.  Any medical documentation he submitted was after his discharge for the purpose of proving he had no medical issues and to support his competency for military service.

	d.  While the Board's response that his current RE code is waivable, no branch of service is honoring mental health waivers, which he would need due to the errors made in his discharge.

	e.  The Board stated that "evidence shows he 'requested' to be discharged."  This is either a misunderstanding or a fabrication of false evidence.  If the New Hampshire Army National Guard (NHARNG) took his admission of being on a medication as a "request" to be discharged, that was their mistake.

3.  He provides:

* AARTS printout
* letter of explanation, subject:  Reenlistment, written for a recruiter in December 2010

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20110010422, on 1 December 2011.

2.  The letter of explanation written in December 2010 and AARTS printout provided by the applicant are new evidence, which warrants consideration by this Board.

3.  He enlisted in the NHARNG on 12 January 2006.  He trained as a cannon crewmember.


4.  A DA Form 3349 (Physical Profile Record), dated March 2007, shows he was issued a permanent profile of 111114 for generalized anxiety disorder; obsessive compulsive personality disorder; narcissistic personality disorder; and impulse control disorder, unspecified.

5.  On 16 March 2007, his commander requested that based on the applicant's issuance of a physical profile with the recommendation for a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB)/Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), the applicant be referred to the Physical Disability Evaluation System (PDES) in accordance with Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness).  His commander further stated that based on the permanent profile and his discussion with the applicant he was requesting the applicant be medically separated from the military.

6.  A Fitness for Duty memorandum, dated 19 March 2007, states that after careful review of medical documentation provided by the applicant from his civilian physicians, retention physical/periodic health assessment, the NHARNG State Surgeon determined the applicant did not meet Army Regulation 40-501 retention standards and recommended the applicant be processed for separation based on his medical disqualification.

7.  A memorandum regarding the applicant's discharge, dated 27 March 2007, stated the applicant had called and requested to be discharged from the military due to mental health issues.

8.  On 12 April 2007, separation proceedings were initiated.

9.  On 5 June 2007, the applicant elected in writing to be discharged from the Army National Guard for medical retention disqualification.  He also had the option of electing transfer to the Retired Reserve in accordance with Army Regulation 140-10 (Assignments, Attachments, Details, and Transfers),
chapter 6, or electing a non-duty related PEB for a retention ruling only.

10.  On 13 June 2007, he was honorably discharged under the provisions of National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), paragraph 8-35l(8), for being medically unfit for retention.

11.  His NGB Form 22 shows in:

* item 13 (Primary Specialty Number, Title, and Date Awarded) the entry "13B1O - Cannon Crewmember (20060525)////NOTHING FOLLOWS////"
* ITEM 15 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Commendations, Citations and Campaign Ribbons Awarded This Period) the entry "ARMY SVC (Service) RIBBON////NOTHING FOLLOWS////
* item 23 (Authority and Reason) the entry "NGR 600-200, Para (paragraph) 8-35l(8) Medically unfit for retention per AR (Army Regulation) 40-501"
* item 26 (Reenlistment Eligibility) the entry "RE-3"

12.  He submits a letter, dated 23 April 2009, indicating he had no identifiable diagnosis for a mental health disorder at the time the letter was written.  He also submits a letter, dated 5 January 2010, indicating he had been off the medication Fluoxetine for the previous 14 months.

13.  On 5 October 2010, the Adjutant General, NHARNG denied the applicant's request to amend his narrative reason for separation and RE code on his NGB Form 22. 

14.  He provided a letter of explanation written in December 2010 in which he states he was one of the first Soldiers in the state selected for the newly established Honor Guard team and he was promoted to private first class.  During a routine medical records check on a drill weekend in 2007 he stated that he was on medication.  He was on Fluoxetine at the time to help him deal with family issues.  He really did not need it and he would not have been on it if he had known he would have been discharged because of it.  He stopped taking the medication after his discharge and had been off it for 3 years with no issues.

15.  He provided an AARTS printout showing he completed various correspondence courses in addition to the cannon crewmember course.  He states he provided this printout with his earlier application.  The AARTS printout was not attached to his original application.

16.  A review of his prior application (two DD Forms 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)) revealed no mention of what awards he was requesting.

17.  Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) states:

	a.  The National Defense Service Medal is awarded for honorable active service for any period between 27 July 1950 and 27 July 1954, 1 January 1961 and 14 August 1974, 2 August 1990 and 30 November 1995, and 11 September 2001 and a date to be determined.  It further states Army National Guard and U.S. Army Reserve forces personnel on short tours of duty to fulfill training obligations will not be considered as performing active service which qualifies for award of the National Defense Service Medal.


	b.  The Global War on Terrorism Service Medal is authorized for award to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who have participated in the Global War on Terrorism operations outside of the designated areas of eligibility, on or after 11 September 2001 to a future date to be determined.  All Soldiers on active duty, including Reserve Component Soldiers mobilized, or National Guard Soldiers activated on or after 11 September 2001 to a date to be determined having served 30 consecutive days or 60 nonconsecutive days are authorized the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal.

18.  NGR 600-200, paragraph 8-35l(8), implementing draft (NGB-ARH Policy Memorandum #06-053), dated 27 September 2006, referred to a Soldier being medically unfit for retention per Army Regulation 40-501.  Commanders, who suspected that a Soldier may not be medically qualified for retention would direct the Soldier to report for a complete medical examination per the provisions of Army Regulation 40-501.  Commanders who did not recommend retention would request the Soldier's discharge.  Discharge would not be ordered while the case was pending final disposition.  RE-3 code would be given.

19.  NGR 600-200, table 8-1 (Definition of reentry eligibility codes), implementing draft, states that:

* RE-1 was assigned when a Soldier was fully qualified for reentry
* RE-2 was assigned when a Soldier was discharged before completing a contracted period of service, reenlistment was not contemplated, or requesting discharge for reason of pregnancy
* RE-3 was assigned when a Soldier was not fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at the time of separation, but the disqualification was waivable

20.  NGR 600-200 prescribes the policy for completing the NGB Form 22.  It states to enter all military courses of 40 hours/5 days or more in duration taken from item 17, DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contentions that there was never any "medical documentation" provided during his discharge processing and that he never asked to be discharged and therefore, he should have never been discharged are noted.

	a.  However, a DA Form 3349 shows he was issued a permanent profile of 111114 for generalized anxiety disorder; obsessive compulsive personality disorder; narcissistic personality disorder; and impulse control disorder, 


unspecified.  A Fitness for Duty memorandum states after careful review of medical documentation provided by the applicant from his civilian physicians and retention physical/periodic health assessment, the NHARNG State Surgeon determined the applicant did not meet Army Regulation 40-501 retention standards and recommended the applicant be processed for medical disqualification.  As such, it is reasonable to presume regularity in that the State Surgeon's office did in fact review the applicant's retention physical/periodic health assessment as stated in the memorandum.

	b.  Additionally, a memorandum, dated 27 March 2007, states he called and requested discharge due to mental health issues.  A memorandum with his signature shows on 5 June 2007 he requested to be discharged from the Army National Guard for medical retention disqualification.  If he had believed he was not medically unfit for retention he could have requested a non-duty related PEB for a fitness for duty ruling.  Instead, he elected to be discharged from the ARNG for medical retention disqualification.

2.  The fact that letters written a few years after his discharge indicate he has no diagnosis for a mental health disorder and that he had been off the medication Fluoxetine for the previous 14 months does not mean his reason for separation at the time was in error.

3.  His contention that no branch of service is currently honoring mental health waivers is noted.  However, evidence indicates his narrative reason for separation and RE code were administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations at the time of his separation.  Therefore, there is no basis for changing his narrative reason for separation to something other than medical or for changing his RE-code to a more favorable code.

4.  There is no evidence he had active service in support of the Global War on Terrorism qualifying him for the National Defense Service Medal or the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal.  Therefore, there is no basis for adding these awards to his NGB Form 22.

5.  Regulatory policy does not provide for listing the correspondence courses shown on the AARTS transcript he provided to the NGB Form 22.  Therefore, there is no basis for adding any additional courses to his NGB Form 22.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no evidentiary 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20110010422, dated 1 December 2011.



      ___________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)                                         AR20110025009



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110025009



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1