PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:            12 May 1999  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999021474

	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	
	Mr. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		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, in effect, that her reenlistment (RE) code be changed to one that would allow for immediate reenlistment.

3.  The applicant states that she had a great record in basic training.  She also fell off a telephone pole in training and was not allowed to see a doctor, which would have had a devastating effect if not taken care of.  She believes that she could have been an asset to the Army and would like to enter the Army Reserve.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that she enlisted for training as a signal wire installer and entered active duty on 19 June 1981.  She completed basic training without an incident of record.

5.  Beginning on 24 August 1981 she began seeking treatment for a stomach disorder.  She had noted a history of stomach problems including the vomiting of blood prior to entry in service.  On 31 August 1981 she was treated for a suspected irritable bowel.  She was diagnosed with an adjustment reaction manifested by decreased mood and energy with crying spells.  She continued to seek treatment for stomach problems through 14 September 1981.

6.  On 4 September 1981 she was seen at the mental health activity for an evaluation.  She reported having difficulties adjusting to the Army and that she did not like her unit or the type training.  She desired separation under the trainee discharge program (TDP).

7.  On 9 September 1981 she was treated at the Army medical clinic for a splinter on the right side of her face.  The splinter was removed with no evidence of infection.  A psychiatric evaluation report of 10 September 1981 states that she was free of any mental disorder and is responsible for her own actions.  The report also states that she does not possess the essential character strengths to be a productive soldier and was a high risk for becoming a psychiatric casualty over time.  Rehabilitation efforts were not recommended but discharge under the TDP was recommended.

8.  On 15 and 16 September 1981 the applicant was issued formal counseling statements from her platoon sergeant and first sergeant.  The counseling notes that she has not been able to adjust to military life or cope with the training.  Immediate separation was recommended.

9.  On 21 September 1981 she was notified of contemplated separation for unsuitability.  After consulting with counsel the applicant waived her right to representation by counsel and submitted a statement in her own behalf.  Her statement explains that she has some physical problems but the doctor’s are unable to locate any treatable illness or injury beyond her mental state.  She said that she couldn’t handle the pressure of military life.  The intermediate commander noted that, although she has tried, she cannot cope with the military requirements.
10.  The separation authority approved the request and directed issuance of a general discharge.  Effective 30 October 1981 the applicant was separated under authority of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13-4c for unsuitability with an under honorable conditions characterization of service.  She had 4 months and 12 days creditable service and no lost time.  The RE code listed is RE-3.  NOTE: Her DD Form 214 (report of separation) shows an incorrect paragraph number of the regulation for the separation authority.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contained the policy and outlined the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance and provided, in pertinent part, that commanders would separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member would not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5 of the regulation provided for the administrative separation of individuals who had demonstrated during the first 180 days of training that they lacked the necessary motivation, discipline, ability or aptitude to become effective soldiers.  This program, known as the Trainee Discharge Program (TDP), mandated the award of an honorable discharge.

13.  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 and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the US Army Reserve.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment. That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes, including RA RE codes.  RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.  Certain persons with bars to reenlistment are so disqualified, as are persons discharged under the provisions of chapters 9, 10, 13, and 14 of Army Regulation 635-200.

14.  Army Regulation 635-5-1, in effect at the time, established separation program designators (SPD) based on the authority for separation.  The SPD of JET was the approved code for separation under AR 635-200, paragraph 5-33, marginal or nonproductive TDP.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Notwithstanding the fact that the discharge proceedings were in accordance with regulations in effect at the time, the Board finds that the reason and authority for discharge in this case were unjustly harsh given all the facts and circumstances.  The record does not clearly establish a pattern of apathy.
2.  There is sufficient medical evidence of record that the applicant had a clear history of nervousness about her military environment, which manifested itself in stomach disorders, vomiting, and inability to adjust.  Even her intermediate commander noted that she had tried to adjust but could not.

3.  The Board believes that the trainee discharge program was provided to handle cases such as this applicant who, based on the evidence now presented, lacked the ability or aptitude to become a productive soldier and are not simply undisciplined or apathetic.  However, there is no compelling reason to alter the original RE code of 3 that also applies to soldiers separated under TDP.

4.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by amending her DD Form 214 to show that she was separated under authority of AR 635-200, paragraph 5-33, trainee discharge program, with an honorable characterization of service.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__GDP___  __AAO__  __JEA__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

			George D. Paxson
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999021474	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990512	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19811030	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Para 5-33	
DISCHARGE REASON	A	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT PLUS	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.03	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.