MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            28 August 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003087787

	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	
	Ms. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		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 effect, reconsideration of his request for Correction of the appropriate military records to show a reentry eligibility (RE) code that would allow him to enlist in the Army.

APPLICANT STATES:  That since his discharge he has matured and has obtained several different skills.  He states that he has missed the Army since his discharge and that he has been dreaming of getting back into the service for a long time.  He states, in effect, that his biggest mistake was his constant involvement with the members of his troop and that he was assisting in the clean up of the motor pool when his arms got cut and scraped.  He states that as a result of a snap decision by a doctor, his actions resulted in board proceedings being initiated.  He concludes by stating that he totally regrets getting out of the Army and now he wishes that he had fought harder to remain in the service; as he was young and under many influences.  In support of his appeal, he submits a copy of a psychological intake and psychological evaluation dated 23 January 2003, from Riverhill Psychological Associates.  This constitutes a basis for reconsideration or his original appeal to this Board.

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

After completing 4 years of total prior active service performing the duties of a cannon fire direction specialist, he reenlisted in the Army for 3 years on 14 August 1986, in the pay grade of E-5.  He reenlisted in the Army again on 17 November 1988.

The applicant was counseled on three occasions for failing to discharge is duties as a section chief by not assuring that his personnel were properly dressed and groomed and because his areas of responsibility were not properly maintained.  

On 6 May 1989, the applicant was admitted to the Nurenberg Medical Inpatient Psychiatry Service after being referred for evaluation when it was discovered that he had been scratching superficial cuts in both arms and in his abdomen.  He denied that his actions were related to any suicidal or self-harmful intent, rather that he wanted to increase his own pain tolerance.  The applicant did not think that his behavior was abnormal or self harmful.  He stated that others drink and smoke and that their behavior was accepted but is probably more self harmful than his behavior.  He denied any emotional problems and any alcohol, tobacco or drug use. He also denied any past psychiatric history or family psychiatric history; however, he did acknowledge a long history of fights and difficulty with peer relations.  The applicant was diagnosed as having a mixed personality disorder with antisocial and borderline features.  The psychiatrist indicated that he met the psychiatric retention standards and that he had no psychiatric disease 

or defect that warranted disposition through medical channels.  The psychiatrist further indicated that the applicant’s condition was deeply ingrained, maladaptive pattern of behavior of long duration and that the severity of his condition may result in significant impairment of his ability to function in a military environment.  The psychiatrist opined that his condition and problems were not amenable to hospitalization, treatment, transfer, disciplinary action, training or reclassification to another type of duty within the military.  The psychiatrist cleared him for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command.

On 25 June 1989, the applicant underwent a second mental status evaluation and he was diagnosed again as having a mixed personality disorder.  The psychiatrist determined that he had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings and that he was mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  He was again cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command.

On 20 July 1989, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 5, based on a personality disorder.  The commander cited his extremely ineffective leadership ability and his callous, individualist behavior, which impacted adversely upon the morale and discipline of what was once a cohesive section, as a basis for the recommendation for discharge.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification and after consulting with counsel, he waived his rights and he opted not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation on 1 August 1989.  Accordingly, on 28 August 1989, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, based on a personality disorder.  He had completed 7 years and 15 days of total active service.

The applicant submitted an application to this Board dated 18 September 1991, requesting that his RE code be changed RE-4 to RE-1.  The Board denied his request (AC9309092) on 29 September 1993.

On 22 May 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request to have his reason and authority for discharge changed.

The applicant has now submitted an evaluation from Riverhill Psychological Associates dated 23 January 2003.  The psychologist’s summary and impressions were that based on the clinical interviews the applicant does not appear to present with an Axis I or Axis II psychiatric diagnosis and that while the tests results are not diagnostically definitive and his responses are mostly normal, he did have a strongly idealized self presentation.  The psychologist 

further indicated that his responses might represent “wounded pride” as he indicated that he felt very defeated and worthless when he was told that he could not reenlist in the Army.  The psychologist indicates that his personality features include obsessive-compulsive ideation, which under severe stress may be translated into a tendency to withdraw and/or feel rejected by or suspicious of others.  The psychologist concluded by stating that for the most part, the applicant has a huge need to please, enjoys structure, and is a very detailed, meticulous man who tries to work to the best of his abilities.  The psychologist recommended no treatment plan as this evaluation was requested by the applicant regarding his desire to reenlist in the Army.

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-4 indicates that a person is not qualified for continued Army service by virtue of being separated from the service with a nonwaivable disqualification.

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 actions by the Army in this case were proper, and there is no doubt to be resolved in favor of the applicant.

2.  The applicant was separated and assigned a RE code in accordance with regulations then in effect.

3.  The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions; however, they are unsupported by the evidence of record.  The records show that when he was in the Army, he stated that he was cutting himself to increase his tolerance for pain. Additionally, he was counseled on three separate occasions regarding his failure to discharge his duties.  He was appropriately evaluated by a psychiatrist and he was diagnosed as having a mixed personality disorder.  

4.  The Board has also considered the evaluation from the Riverhill Psychological Associates.  However, the Board finds that it is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the relief requested.  Although the applicant may have been able to 

overcome those disqualifications which ultimately resulted in his discharge and nonwaivable RE code, at the time of his discharge he was assigned an RE code that appropriately reflected his reentry eligibility.  Therefore, the RE code on his DD Form 214 is correct as currently reflected.

5.  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.

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

__hbo ___  __tl_____  __ao____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003087787	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/08/28	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  1021	100.0000	
2.  7	100.0600	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.