MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:  6 June 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999022958

	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. Karl Schneider		Director	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Edward Williamson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. Allen Raub		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:  In essence, that the reason for his discharge be changed from failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards to secretarial authority, and that his reentry eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow reenlistment.

APPLICANT STATES:  In essence, that he believes he was wrongfully discharged as result of his race and also as result of the geographical area in which he was reared.

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

That in June 1995, he was hospitalized in Gainesville, Florida, for a period of 5 or 6 days and medically treated for bipolar disorder. 

On 28 January 1997, he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for a period of 2 years and military occupational (MOS) 91R (Veterinary Food Inspection Specialist).

On 8 July 1997, the applicant was referred to the Department of Psychiatry at the Naval Medical Center, San Diego, California after his command became concerned about his unusual speech and behaviors.  He appeared to be unable to register direct commands/directions and he was disobedient despite redirection.  He elected to be voluntarily hospitalized.  

On 9 July 1997, the applicant was involuntarily placed in a 72 hour “Boxer” hold status and diagnosed to suffer from bipolar disorder, Type I, current or most recent episode hypomanic, mild to moderate severity.  He was offered medication and informed of the necessity of a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) due to his diagnosis.  He refused all medical treatment and evaluation by a medical board.  On day 4, he was released to his unit when he no longer met “Boxer” hold status.  He was counseled and informed that continued inpatient treatment was recommended.  He continued to refuse treatment and was released with the understanding that he would follow-up with outpatient psychiatric care.

On 4 and 5 September 1997, the applicant was counseled for misconduct, for failure to obey a lawful order, for sleeping on duty, and for unsatisfactory performance.  

On an unknown date in early September 1997, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-11, for failure to meet procurement 

medical fitness standards.  The commander cited a 28 July 1997 (sic) 9 July 1997 diagnosis for bipolar disorder, hypomanic, as the basis for his recommendation.  The applicant acknowledged notification.  

On 5 September 1997, he was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated action and its effects, and the rights available to him.  The available record does not contain a statement submitted by the applicant in his own behalf.  He was not entitled to consideration or personal appearance by a board of officers.

There are no further facts available concerning the discharge process.  On 
19 September 1997, the applicant was honorably discharged for failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards.  He had completed 7 months and 
22 days of creditable active service.  He was assigned a code of RE-3. 

Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-11 provides that soldiers who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for enlistment will be separated.  Medical proceedings, regardless of the date completed, must establish that appropriate military medical authority identified a medical condition within 6 months of the soldier’s initial entrance on active duty, and that the condition would have permanently or temporarily disqualified the soldier for entry into military service.  Soldiers separated under these provisions of the regulation will be awarded an honorable, under honorable conditions or uncharacterized description of service if in an entry level status.

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 enlisting and processing into the RA and the eligibility for prior service applicant’s for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of Armed Forces RE codes and RA RE codes. 

RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, however, the disqualification is waivable.  Local recruiting personnel have the responsibility for determining whether an individual meets the current enlistment criteria and that recruiting personnel are required to process a request for waiver.  There is no evidence that he has ever requested such a waiver.

The record indicates the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request to change the reason for his discharge on 28 June 1999.  It was not within the purview of the ADRB to change the RE code.

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 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

2.  Not all the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are a matter of record.  However, he was separated based on not meeting procurement medical fitness standards.  Procedurally, this separation would have required a medical determination be made that he had a medical condition that was disqualifying for enlistment and that it existed prior to entry on active duty. The Board notes that he refused a PEB review which would have determined his fitness for duty.  In view of this, the government has presumed regularity in the discharge process.

3.	While the 28 July 1997 diagnosis of bipolar disorder cited by the unit 
commander in the discharge process is not a matter of record, the 
Board notes that the same diagnosis was made by the Department of Psychiatry, Naval Medical Center, San Diego on 9 July 1997.  Therefore, the Board concludes that the 6-month criteria for identification of a disqualifying medical condition was, in fact, met. 

4.	The applicants administrative separation was accomplished in accordance 
with applicable Army Regulations with no indication of discrimination, prejudice or procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.

5.  There appears to be no basis for removal or waiver of the disqualification which established the basis for the applicant’s RE code.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.  The assigned RE code was and still is appropriate.

6.  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

EW_____  SK_____  ALR_____  DENY APPLICATION

Karl Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR199022958	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000106	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19970919	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chapter 5 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A28.10	
BOARD DECISION	(NC)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.2810	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.