MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            16 April 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001065941

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Ms. Melinda M. Darby		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		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 the Narrative Reason for Separation, Separation Code, and Reentry (RE) Code on his report of separation (DD Form 214), be changed to a more favorable code and that his rank be restored.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was unjustly discharged based on a personality disorder; however, he was evaluated by physicians at the Department of Veterans Affairs and was told that he does not have a personality disorder.  He goes on to state that he has been unable to obtain employment because of his discharge.

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

He enlisted in Nashville, Tennessee, on 13 September 1978 for a period of 3 years.  He completed his training as a supply specialist and remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 29 March 1984. 

On 29 January 1991, while stationed at Fort Hunter Liggett, California, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for being drunk and disorderly, for being disrespectful towards a commissioned officer, and for disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-4, a forfeiture of pay (suspended for 2 months) and restriction.  He did not appeal his punishment.

On 8 March 1991, nonjudicial punishment was again imposed against him for being disorderly, for assaulting his wife, for resisting apprehension by an armed forces policeman, and for disobeying a lawful order from his commander not to consume alcoholic beverages.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.  He did not appeal his punishment.

The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s administrative discharge are not present in the available records.  However, his records do contain a duly constituted DD Form 214 signed by the applicant, which shows that he was honorably discharged on 20 March 1991, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, based on a personality disorder.  He had served 12 years, 6 months and 8 days of total active service and was given a RE Code of “3”.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 24 July 1993, citing essentially the same reasons to that board that he is contending at this time.  The ADRB opined that he had been properly and equitably discharged and voted unanimously to deny his request on 21 November 1995.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13 provides the criteria for discharge because of a personality disorder.  It states, in pertinent part, that a soldier may be separated for personality disorders that interfere with assignment to or performance of duty.  The diagnosis of personality disorder must have been established by a physician trained in Psychiatry and psychiatric diagnosis.  Separation because of personality disorder is authorized only if the diagnosis concludes that the disorder is so severe that the soldier’s ability to function effectively in the military environment is significantly impaired.

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 chapters 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 16 of Army Regulation 635-200.  A waiting period of 2 years from separation is required before a waiver may be submitted.

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 the absence of evidence of the contrary, it must be presumed that the applicant’s administrative discharge was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations. Accordingly, it must also be presumed that the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate under the circumstances.

2.  The applicant was properly reduced to the pay grade of E-1 as a result of nonjudicial punishment imposed against him.  Accordingly, he was properly separated in that pay grade.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board; however, the Board does not grant relief solely for the purpose of improving employment opportunities and the applicant has provided no evidence to support his contention that he was unjustly discharged.

4.  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 this requirement.

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

___md __  ___jm___  ___inw __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001065941	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/04/16	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1991/03/20	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/ch5	
DISCHARGE REASON	Personality disorder	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  756	144.8600/a86.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.