MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 
	BOARD DATE:  15 September 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999021857

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration 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. James M. Alward		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Member	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his discharge characterization be changed from entry level status to under honorable conditions and, in effect, that his reenlistment (RE) code be changed to one that will allow reentry.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his family was having difficulties and he needed to be home to help them; that he was not advised of his legal rights and told to sign forms with little explanation; that he was only 20 years old at the time; that he has matured over the past 14 years and wants a career in law enforcement but is considered an undesirable because of his discharge and RE code.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He enlisted and entered active duty on 2 August 1984 at 21½ years of age.  While still in training he was seen by two physician’s assistants and four Medical Corps officers for complaints of anxiety, feeling faint, and frequent crying episodes.

A 10 October 1984 mental hygiene consultation provides a diagnosis of adjustment disorder with anxious mood; mixed personality disorder with dependent and avoidance features.  It was recommended that he be administratively separated because he did not possess the strengths necessary to be a productive soldier.

A 16 October 1984 counseling form notes that the applicant complained of many personal problems and no interest in Army service.  He said that he was just pushed through basic training.  The applicant wept during the entire conversation and was again referred to mental hygiene services.

On 19 October 1984 he was notified of his commander’s intent to recommend he be discharged for an immature behavior pattern and inability to adjust to military life.  He was informed of his right to consult with counsel and to submit statements in his behalf.  On 19 October 1994 the applicant waived his rights to consult with counsel and to make statements in his own behalf.  The commander acknowledged that the applicant had personally made the choice to waive his rights after being informed of the reason for separation and the rights available to him.

A 22 October 1984 counseling form prepared by the battalion executive officer noted the previous counseling that occurred and efforts at rehabilitation.  It states that the trainee discharge program (TDP) was explained to him and he understood it.  The applicant explained that he wanted a TDP while in basic training but they just pushed him through.  His mother had called the commander to explain that he was needed at home.  The applicant authenticated the form and wrote that he would not be able to adjust to military life even with counseling. He was not bred to be a soldier.
On 23 October 1984 the separation authority approved the request and directed an uncharacterized separation under entry level status.  His DD Form 214 (report of separation) shows that he was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 in grade E-2 on 26 October 1984 with 2 months and 25 days creditable service.  His RE code is listed as 3.

On 17 May 1999 the Army Discharge Review Board, in a unanimous decision, voted to reject the applicant’s request to change his discharge.

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 who have received nonjudicial punishment are so disqualified, as are persons with bars to reenlistment, and those discharged under the provisions of other chapters of Army Regulation 635-200.

Army Regulation 635-200 provides the policy for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 11, in effect at the time, provided for separation because of unsatisfactory performance while in an entry level status (180 days).  The regulation specifies that the service will not be characterized.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the assigned reentry eligibility code was and still is appropriate.  There appears to be no basis for removal of that disqualification which established the basis for the reentry eligibility code.

2.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The applicant declined counsel, waived his right to submit statements in his behalf and acknowledged that he understood the trainee discharge program.  The contentions of the applicant have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not supported by either evidence of record or that submitted with the application.

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JA___  ___TK___  ___KN__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999021857	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990915	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UNCHAR	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CH 11.  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.	112.10	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.