MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:    

	BOARD DATE:          15 May 2003                    
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003083659

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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:  Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his  military records by changing his discharge for unsuitability to convenience of the Government. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he does not have a personality disorder.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case (AR2002043598) on 29 March 2001.  In that consideration, the Board transferred the record of proceedings of two nonjudicial punishments imposed under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, from the applicant’s performance fiche to the restricted fiche of his Official Military Personnel File.  However, the Board denied the applicant’s request to have his reentry (RE) code changed to a code which would allow him to reenlist in the Regular Army.  Also incorporated herein by reference is the memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's previous consideration of the case (AR 2002070941) on 15 August 2002.  In that application, he requested reconsideration of the Board’s denial of changing his RE code, and also requested that the reason and authority for his discharge be changed.  The Board concluded at that time that there was no error or injustice in either the 
RE code assigned to the applicant, or in the reason and authority for his separation.

In support of his current request, he submits a forensic evaluation.  In that evaluation, he reported to the psychiatrist that his mother did not want him to be in the military because she had two brothers who were prisoners of war during WWII.  The stress of his mother’s condemnation, along with homesickness, led him to fabricate grounds for him to be discharged.  He deliberately did poorly in training, and then falsely told a psychiatrist he was referred to for examination that he had repeated outbursts of overemotional responses to minor environmental stresses; he falsely told the psychiatrist that he could not control anxiety feelings; he falsely portrayed immaturity; he falsely told the psychiatrist that he couldn’t assimilate military subjects in his training; and he falsely told the psychiatrist that he had impaired insight and judgment.  The psychiatrist conducting the forensic evaluation concluded that “The history I receive from [the applicant] does not support the diagnosis of any severe personality disorder.  He denies having a multi-year history of marked difficulties in interpersonal, personal 

and work functioning that are the basis of having a severe personality disorder.  Moreover, his industrious and successful work and educational history do not support the diagnosis of a severe personality disorder at any time.”

The Manual for Court-Martial, Table of Maximum Punishments, Article 107, False Official Statements, provides a maximum allowable punishment of a Dishonorable Discharge, 5 years confinement, and a total forfeiture of pay.

The applicant’s forensic evaluation is new evidence that requires Board consideration.

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.  The forensic evaluation conclusions were based on the information provided by the applicant, himself.  Since the applicant has stated in his application to the Board that he deliberately did poorly in training, and he falsely reported having symptoms of an inadequate personality in order to be discharged, it is clearly established that he will fabricate stories to obtain what he wants.

2.  As such, the Board cannot accept the forensic evaluation as evidence that the applicant did not suffer from a personality disorder at the time he was serving on active duty.

3.  However, even if the Board were to change the reason for the applicant’s discharge, it would not be to a convenience of the Government separation.  The Board would have to determine a type of discharge which would be appropriate for a soldier who made false, official statements to commissioned officers of the United States Army, a court-martial offense that carries a maximum allowable punishment of a Dishonorable Discharge, 5 years confinement, and a total forfeiture of pay.

4.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

5.  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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

	Carl W. S. Chun
    Director, Army Board for Correction 
	of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003083659	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030515	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.