IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 20 October 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20140012355 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant's record of service during the period of enlistment under review, and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. Presiding Officer I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case. THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST AND STATEMENT: 1. The applicant requests a change to the narrative reason for separation. 2. The applicant states, in effect, financial hardships and loss of stability in his marriage and family life attributed to his separation from the Army. The applicant contends he sought counseling from medical services and, based on the doctor’s recommendation, decided to separate from the Army temporarily with the knowledge and intent to reenlist and continue his military career. The applicant contends that he did not thoroughly understand the impact of the JFX separation code and RE code of 3 on his ability to reenlist and, had he known, would not have agreed to the separation. The applicant contends his commander inquired if he was sure of his decision and that, if necessary, the commander would stop the separation process. The applicant further contends that he did not have the wisdom or maturity at the time of his separation to realize that he was making a mistake by allowing a discharge under those circumstances. DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. Application Receipt Date: 11 July 2014 b. Discharge Received: Honorable c. Date of Discharge: 2 September 2005 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Personality Disorder, AR 635-200, Chapter 5-13, JFX, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: 551st Transportation Company, 6th Transportation Battalion, 7th Transportation Group, Fort Eustis, Virginia f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 13 August 2002/6 years g. Current Enlistment Service: 3 years, 20 days h. Total Service: 3 years, 2 months, 8 days i. Time Lost: None j. Previous Discharges: DEP, 020624-020812, NA k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-4 l. Military Occupational Specialty: 63S10, Heavy Wheeled Mechanic m. GT Score: 122 n. Education: HS Graduate o. Overseas Service: SWA, Korea p. Combat Service: Iraq (040512-041130) q. Decorations/Awards: AAM, AGCM, ICM, NDSM, ASR, OSR, KDSM GWOTSM r. Administrative Separation Board: N/A s. Performance Ratings: N/A t. Counseling Statements: Yes u. Prior Board Review: No SUMMARY OF SERVICE: The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 August 2002, for a period of 6 years. He was 20 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. He served in Korea and Iraq. He earned an AAM, and an AGCM, and completed 3 years and 20 days of active duty service. When his discharge proceedings were initiated, he was serving at Fort Eustis, Virginia. SEPARATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES: 1. The evidence of record shows on 13 May 2005, the applicant was diagnosed by competent medical authority with an adjustment disorder with depressive disorder not otherwise specified and borderline personality disorder. It also concluded the applicant is unable to cope with the demands of routine military service and further incidents, to include suicidal ideation, are possible. In addition, a genuine suicide attempt, although far less likely, cannot be ruled out as a future possibility; therefore, any future attempt would be attributable to the applicant’s character and behavior disorder. It was recommended the applicant is given an expeditious administrative discharge from the Army. 2. On 6 July 2005, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 5, paragraph 5-13, by reason of personality disorder, diagnosed by a medically qualified psychiatrist as suffering from a long standing character and behavior disorder, which was of such severity as to interfere with his ability to adequately serve in the US Army. 3. The unit commander recommended an honorable discharge and advised the applicant of his rights. 4. On 7 July 2005, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service. The intermediate commander recommended approval with an honorable discharge. 5. On 12 August 2005, the separation authority directed the applicant’s discharge with a characterization of service of honorable. 6. The applicant was discharged from the Army on 2 September 2005, with an honorable characterization of service. 7. The applicant’s service record does not contain any evidence of unauthorized absences or time lost. EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: 1. Memorandum, Medical Department Activity Fort Eustis, dated 13 May 2005, states the applicant was diagnosed by competent medical authority with an adjustment disorder with depressive disorder not otherwise specified, and borderline personality disorder. It also concluded the applicant is unable to cope with the demands of routine military service and further incidents, to include suicidal ideation, are possible. In addition, a genuine suicide attempt, although far less likely, cannot be ruled out as a future possibility; therefore, any future attempt would be attributable to the applicant’s character and behavior disorder. It was recommended the applicant is given an expeditious administrative discharge from the Army. 2. One counseling statement, dated 19 August 2005, informing applicant of initiation of separation under Chapter 5-13. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: 1. The applicant provided a self-authored letter of explanation. The applicant states he was the only qualified maintenance mechanic and one of the few qualified, licensed, and experienced to operate and maintain the heavy equipment and vehicles in the 6th Transportation Battalion, providing direct support to the 551st Transportation Company. The applicant states that a significant amount of time at the motor pool in preparation of the upcoming deployment to the Middle East, coupled with the pending deployment resulted in constant fighting and issues in his marriage. The applicant states that he voluntarily sought out counseling to help deal with his marital issues, with the intention to move forward with his career and provide quality support to his unit. The applicant states the doctor he was seeing did not want the applicant to deploy, during a time of personal turmoil, as it was a recipe for disaster. The option that the doctor suggested was to leverage the applicant’s situation for separation so that he could focus solely on resolution, without external factors, and be able to return to active duty. The applicant states he was able to perform his duties exceptionally, as evident by the awarding of an AAM for his achievements. 2. Virginia Circuit Court of the County of Chesterfield, dated 2 July 2004, final decree of his dissolved marriage with JF. 3. The applicant provided a DD Form 214, covering the period of service under review. POST-SERVICE ACTIVITY: None provided with the application. REGULATORY AUTHORITY: 1. Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-13 in effect at the time, provided that a Soldier may be separated for a personality disorder, not amounting to disability, when the condition interfered with assignment to or performance of duty. The regulation requires that the condition is a deeply ingrained maladaptive pattern of behavior of long duration that interferes with the Soldier's ability to perform military duties. The regulation also directs that commanders will not take action prescribed in this Chapter in lieu of disciplinary action and requires that the disorder is so severe that the Soldier’s ability to function in the military environment is significantly impaired. 2. Army policy requires the award of a fully honorable discharge in such case. 3. Characterization of service under honorable conditions may be awarded to a Soldier who has been convicted of an offense by general court-martial or who has been convicted by more than one special court-martial in the current enlistment, period of obligated service, or any extension thereof. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATION: 1. The applicant’s request for a change to the narrative reason for separation was carefully considered. However, after a careful review of his military records during the period of enlistment under review and the issue he submitted, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit a change to the narrative reason for separation. 2. The record confirms that the applicant was diagnosed by competent medical authority with a personality disorder (depressive disorder not otherwise specified and borderline personality disorder). The unit commander properly initiated discharge proceedings under the provisions of Chapter 5, paragraph 5-13, AR 635-200, in effect at the time, by reason of personality disorder, with a characterization of service of honorable. 3. The applicant contends he is entitled to a change to the narrative reason for separation because of mitigating circumstances which contributed to his discharge. Specifically, he claims a demanding pre-deployment schedule, family issues at home, and financial problems resulted in his discharge. While the applicant may believe his personal issues at home and work was the underlying cause of his misconduct, the record of evidence does not demonstrate that he sought relief from personal issues through his command or the numerous Army community services like the Chaplain, Army Community and Family Support Services, Community Counseling Center, and other medical resources available to all Soldiers. Likewise, he has provided no evidence that he should not be held responsible for his misconduct. 4. The applicant contends that he sought counseling from medical services. However, the service record does not support the applicant’s contention, and no evidence to support it has been submitted to corroborate the discharge was the result of medical advice received by the applicant. 5. The applicant contends his narrative reason for separation should be changed because he did not thoroughly understand the impact of the JFX separation code and RE code of 3 on his ability to reenlist and, had he known, would not have agreed to the separation. However, the issue the applicant submitted is not a matter upon which the Army Discharge Review Board grants a change in discharge because it raises no matter of fact, law, procedure, or discretion related to the discharge process, nor is it associated with the discharge at the time it was issued. 6. The applicant desires to rejoin the Military Service. However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 3. There are no basis upon which to grant a change to the reason or to the RE code. An RE Code of 3 indicates the applicant requires a waiver prior to being allowed to reenlist. If reenlistment is desired, the applicant should contact a local recruiter to determine eligibility to reenlist. Recruiters can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes if appropriate. 7. The applicant contends his commander inquired if the applicant was sure of his decision and that, if necessary, the commander would stop the separation process. However, the record does not contain any indication or evidence of arbitrary or capricious actions by the command and all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process. The character of the applicant’s discharge is commensurate with his overall service record. 8. The applicant contends that he was young and immature at the time of the discharge. The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service. 9. The applicant contends that he had exceptional service which included receiving an AAM for institution of a HAZMAT storage and handling program that was used as an example peninsula wide during an Aviation Resource Management Survey (ARMS) inspection, in addition to bringing the operation readiness of 6th Transportation Company to over 90%. The applicant’s service accomplishments and the quality of his service prior to the incidents that caused the initiation of discharge proceedings were carefully considered. However, this service was determined not to be sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the reason for discharge. 10. The applicant requests a change to the reason for his discharge; however, the narrative reason for separation is governed by specific directives. The applicant was discharged under the provisions of Chapter 5, paragraph 5-13, AR 635-200, in effect at the time. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Personality Disorder," and the separation code is "JFX." Army Regulation 635-5, Separation Documents, governs preparation of the DD Form 214 and dictates that entry of the narrative reason for separation, entered in block 28 and separation code, entered in block 26 of the form, will be entered exactly as listed in tables 2-2 or 2-3 of AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes. The regulation further stipulates that no deviation is authorized. There was no provision for any other reason to be entered under this regulation. 11. Therefore, the narrative reason for discharge being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief. SUMMARY OF ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD HEARING: Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 20 October 2014 Location: Washington, DC Did the Applicant Testify? No Counsel: None Board Vote: Character Change: 0 No Change: 5 Reason Change: 0 No Change: 5 (Board member names available upon request) Board Action Directed: Issue a new DD Form 214: No Change Characterization to: No Change Change Reason to: No Change Change Authority for Separation: No Change Change RE Code to: No Change Grade Restoration to: NA Other: NA Legend: AMHRR - Army Military Human Resource Record FG - Field Grade IADT – Initial Active Duty Training RE - Reentry AWOL - Absent Without Leave GD - General Discharge NA - Not applicable SCM- Summary Court Martial BCD - Bad Conduct Discharge HS - High School NIF - Not in File SPCM - Special Court Martial CG - Company Grade Article 15 HD - Honorable Discharge OAD - Ordered to Active Duty UNC - Uncharacterized Discharge CID - Criminal investigation Department MP – Military Police OMPF - Official Military Personnel File UOTHC - Under Other Than Honorable Conditions ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont) AR20140012355 Page 7 of 7 pages ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (ADRB) CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE 1