PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            24 June 1999      
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999019439

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Gary C. Miller		Member	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to general or honorable; that his reentry (RE) code be changed to RE-1, instead of RE-4; and that he receive a medical discharge.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was supposed to be discharged for medical reasons because he was diagnosed with major depression and other ailments that were caused or aggravated while he was on active duty.  He contends that he spent three months in the psychiatric ward at Walter Reed Hospital and was supposed to go before a medical evaluation board (MEB) for a medical discharge.  In support of his application, he submits the first page of his Sanity Board Evaluation, dated 28 September 1990.  

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted on 29 November 1988 for a period of 2 years.  He successfully completed basic training, was recycled in advanced individual training and extended his enlistment for a period of
12 months on 3 May 1989.  He was transferred to Walter Reed Army Hospital for duty as a medical specialist on 12 June 1989. 

5.  On 27 March 1990 the applicant went AWOL and returned to military control on 3 April 1990.

6.  On 11 July 1990 charges were preferred against the applicant for the aforementioned AWOL period, buying stolen property (eight blank checks), and forgery.

7.  On 28 September 1990, a Sanity Board diagnosed the applicant with
Axis I:  Major depression, single episode, severe, without psychotic features and alcohol dependence, in partial remission; Axis II:  Personality disorder, not otherwise specified with paranoid, narcissistic, and antisocial traits; and 
Axis III:  Right wrist post traumatic arthritis.  The Board determined that at the time of the applicant’s criminal conduct he had no severe mental disease or defect and was able to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct.  The Board also determined that the applicant had sufficient mental capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings against him and to cooperate intelligently in his defense.    

8.  On 18 October 1990, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He indicated in his request that he understood he could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he personally made the choice to submit his request.  Additionally, he elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.  In summary, he attributed his misconduct to psychological problems and alcohol abuse.  He stated that he had recently reconciled with his wife and desires to be discharged in order to care for her and their three-year old daughter. 
9.  On 6 November 1990 he went AWOL again and returned to military control on
29 November 1990.

10.  The applicant’s commander recommended that his request for discharge be approved and that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

11.  On 27 November 1990 the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

12.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 29 November 1990 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had served 1 year, 10 months and 29 days of total active service and was issued an RE code of RE-4.

13.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB).  He contended that at the time he accepted the Chapter 10 discharge he was suffering from depression and had tried to commit suicide, that he had an excellent military record and if he had been in the right state of mind he would not have accepted it in lieu of a court-martial.  He also contended that his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows his character of service as honorable in item 27 (Remarks) and at the time of his discharge he was facing a MEB review for a disability that he suffered while serving on active duty.  He claims that he still suffers from this disability and is not being compensated for because of his discharge.  The ADRB determined that the applicant was properly discharged and denied his appeal on 25 March 1997. 

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

15.  Pertinent Army regulations provide 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 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment processing into the Regular Army and the 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.

16.  RE-1 applies to persons completing an initial term of active service who was fully qualified when last separated.
17.  RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable, such as discharged for the good of the service instead of trial by court-martial.

18.  RE-4 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service by virtue of being separated from the service with a nonwaivable disqualification.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contentions were noted by the Board.  However, they are not supported by the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.  There is no evidence of record available to the Board which shows he was supposed to appear before a MEB or to be discharged for medical reasons.

2.  The evidence of record does show the applicant was evaluated by a Sanity Board prior to his voluntary request for discharge.  Competent medical authority determined that the applicant had sufficient mental capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings against him and to cooperate intelligently in his defense. 

3.  The applicant’s voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.  

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. 

5.  At the time of the applicant’s separation from the service he was incorrectly issued an RE code of RE-4.  Therefore, it would be appropriate at this time to correct his records to show that his RE code should be RE-3.

6.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records, but only as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was issued a RE code of
RE-3, vice the RE code of RE-4 he currently holds.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied. 

BOARD VOTE:  

RVO_____  GCM___  CLG____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999019439	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990624	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(UOTHC)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19901129	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 CHAPTER 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL	
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.	100.0300	
3.	108.0000	
4.		
5.		
6.