BOARD DATE: 1 May 2020 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20180003245 APPLICANT REQUESTS: * amendment of her narrative reason for separation from personality disorder to condition, not a disability * amendment of her separation authority from Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), paragraph 5-13 to paragraph 5-17 * amendment of her Separation Program Designator (SPD) from JFX (personality disorder) to KNL (for the good of the service), but in effect intended to request amendment to JFV (condition, not a disability) * upgrade of her reentry eligibility (RE) code from “3” to “1” * addition of the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Overseas Service Ribbon, and Certificate of Achievement to her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated 10 February 2018 * Counsel’s brief, dated 10 February 2018 * DD Form 293, dated 10 October 2018 * DD Form 293, dated 17 October 2018 * DD Form 293, dated 2 April 2019 * six self-authored statements * Certificate of Achievement, dated 7 November 2002 * photo of plaque, Fall 2002 * DA From 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form), dated 5 December 2002 * Unit Activities Report “WRAIR Forward”, dated December 2002 * partial Standard Form 88 (Report of Medical Examination), dated 15 January 2003 * partial DD Form 2807-1(Report of Medical History), dated 28 January 2003 * nine photos of applicant and others in uniform * DD Form 214 * six letters of recommendation * prior Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) Record of Proceedings for docket number AR20050016241, dated 10 August 2006 * seven newspaper articles about applicant and her work * thank you note to applicant, dated 28 October 2017 * personal letter to applicant from Member of Congress, dated 1 November 2017 * group photograph * photo of challenge coins * Certificate of Recognition, dated 16 November 2018 * email correspondence from applicant, dated 22 April 2019 * Neuropsychological Assessment, dated 2 May 2019 * Privacy Act Release, dated 6 May 2019 * letter from Member of Congress, dated 10 May 2019 FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United States Code, section 1552(b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states: a. Her first application to the ABCMR was completed with the assistance of Counsel, who it is understood no longer represents the applicant. In the initial application, Counsel requested a change to the applicant’s narrative reason for separation from “personality disorder” to “for the good of the service”. The applicant’s subsequent three applications to the Board and numerous subsequent self-authored statements make clear it was never her desire to change her narrative reason for separation to “for the good of the service,” but rather to “condition, not a disability.” As such, the initial request from Counsel will be disregarded in favor of the applicant’s subsequent requests. b. She enlisted in the Army because she is a patriot and wanted to serve her country. She wanted to be in the Army and work in a military environment and successfully completed both Basic Combat Training and Advanced Individual Training. c. Although her first duty assignment was in Kitzingen, Germany, she was actually stationed in Schweinfurt, Germany, never meeting her unit in Kitzingen. She worked in a Mental Health Clinic every day with a psychologist who only months later was shocked to hear the applicant was accused of having a personality disorder. The applicant was the only person in her unit who was a Mental Health Specialist. Being a Mental Health Specialist turned a lot of people off. She was completely isolated from her peers. She never had to go to formation; didn’t work with anyone, or go to the range. The Mental Health Clinic was off the Schweinfurt base, so every morning she would wake up, put on her uniform, and walk through civilian Germans to go to the office she worked in. Everyone she worked with at the clinic was married with lives of their own after work, while she ate alone in her room. Had she been with her unit and had peers to interact with and go to the chow hall with she would not have felt so isolated. She would have had relationships she could count on. Without these interpersonal relationships she started to get depressed. d. As a Mental Health Specialist she conducted one-on-one counseling for over 30 patients a week. If a Soldier needed mental health counseling, they were sent to her on the authority of a noncommissioned officer (NCO) or noncommissioned officer in charge (NCOIC). Every NCO expected that the treatment the Soldier received would return them to the most productive Soldier they could be. She was given a tremendous amount of trust and responsibility. The captain she was working with, a psychologist, would not have let her do such counseling if he suspected that she had a personality disorder. It would break the trust of the NCOs. She counseled patients up until 10 January 2003. If either her NCO or captain thought she had a personality disorder, they would have stopped her from providing mental health treatment well before that. e. In July 2002 she met her fiancé, who was a fellow Soldier in Schweinfurt. She excelled at her job. While they dated, her depression lessened. She was happy and successful in her working relationships. His friends became her friends. By being with him, people were less skeptical of her. With the support of her fiancé and friends she was able to readjust to her situation despite the stressful times. She was a great Soldier. She excelled at tasks that required assessing personal insight and making difficult decisions. The degree of decision making with minimal supervision is not a quality that a person with a “personality disorder” would be able to handle. She was a productive member of a major mental health study for which her efforts were recognized in November 2002. f. When her finance was discharged, she took leave to get married. When she returned a married woman, many of the men didn’t want to hang out with her out of respect for him. She quickly became isolated again, unable to get him back to Germany, or receive outpatient counseling. The depression she struggled under eventually led to her diagnosis of adjustment disorder. g. In November 2002, she tried to get command sponsorship to bring her husband to Germany, but continually failed. Without a support system her depression worsened. On 6 December 2002, she got written up for “behavior inconsistent with prior performance” after she got upset at work. She was told to get her personal affairs in order, but she was not given guidance on how to do this. She could not get mental health treatment at the clinic she worked at because of the conflict of interest concerns. The closest Mental Health Clinic was 3 hours away and she did not have a car. h. After a January 2003 incident with a female patient, she was sent to Landstuhl Regional Medical Center (LRMC) because she was so far away from a different clinic. At LRMC she was treated for depression and adjustment disorder, not for a personality disorder. One she was given Paxil, she felt better within a few days. She thinks this proves her condition was not a deeply ingrained maladaptive pattern per Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Separations), paragraph 5-13. The counseling at LRMC helped her relieve the stressors and get relief from her depression. Her emotions were under control, but she was never given the opportunity to show this to her supervisor. She was devastated to later learn that by her 5th day into her hospital admission, her Command had already stated her separation paperwork. She was never given the chance to receive outpatient mental health counseling to be the successful Soldier she knew she could be. i. If she had gotten help in Schweinfurt and received a diagnoses of depression and adjustment disorder, she would have been prescribed the medication that worked and continued to do her duty. She would not have been discharged. Looking back, she believes her problems stemmed from the following four reasons: * having the military occupational specialty (MOS) 91X (Mental Health Specialist) * working in a clinic that was geographically far from another Mental Health Clinic * being separated from her unit * not being with her husband j. It is her biggest disappointment that she was separated before completing her enlistment, as it is not in her nature to not complete what she started. Then to be separated because of a personality disorder was simply unjust. Since leaving the military, every mental health professional who has counseled her has confirmed she does not have a personality disorder. She was raised a wonderful daughter, earned advanced degrees, held high status jobs, and earned the respect of her colleagues, none of which would be possible if she truly had a personality disorder. k. It breaks her heart every day that she was discharged from the Army. Her intention was to served her country and fulfill her commitment. It is because of the desire to be in the military that she became a Veterans Services Officer. She was not able to finish her time in the Army, so she decided to commit her life to serving those who have served. l. She was a good Soldier, as evidenced by the Certificate of Achievement dated 7 November 2002, that she received just a couple of months prior to being discharged. It was not for the good of the service that that she was discharged. In fact, the Certificate of Achievement stated she reflected great credit on the United States Army. m. It was documented she was having a hard time and was getting upset at work. She was exhausted. She was counseling Soldiers all day and then in the evening in the barracks Soldiers would want to talk to her about their issues. She needed a break and someone to talk to. She had no one to talk to since she already worked at the Mental Health Clinic, she couldn’t get confidential/objective care there. She had no way to get to the next closest facility which was a couple of hours away. She was not admitted to the hospital because what she was going through was so severe; it was because she couldn’t commute there that they had to keep her. n. When she was admitted to LRMC, her chain of command were discharging her before she even had a chance to show any improvement. She was only there from 11 January to 16 January 2003, a period of 5 days. On the document dated 15 January 2003, it was marked that she did not have a personality deviation; it was checked off “normal.” It was even documented on 28 January 2003 that she was admitted to LRMC for depression not otherwise specified and adjustment disorder and that she was taking Paxil and doing much better mentally. In addition, it is pretty remarkable that she was able to reestablish herself in such a short amount of time. Unfortunately, at that point it was already too late. All of these facts prove she does not have a personality disorder. o. She has to accept that she will never be able to go back and change the past, but she does want to deal with the implication of it moving forward. She is a Veran Services Officer and is outstanding at her job. It is her fear that someday she will be recognized for her accomplishments and service and they will pull up her DD Form 214 and see personality disorder. It will not line up with their knowledge of her today. p. She does not now and never had a personality disorder. This reason for discharge has a history of being unjustly used by the Army. She was diagnosed with depression and adjustment disorder, which is a condition, not a personality disorder. She was doing better mentally at the time of her discharge, so she should be granted an RE code of “1”. She was not discharged for the good of the service. The supporting documentation she has provided proves she has a history over the years of excelling personally, socially, in both academia and employment and that she is highly motivated and successful given the opportunity. The long duration of her life is extremely positive and successful. Her military discharge was based on limited situational information and she was never given the opportunity to show her improvement. q. Please review her Developmental Counseling Form from 5 December 2002, which shows that less than 1 month prior to her discharge she was being counseled on preparing to go in front of the promotion board and was directed to complete a DA Form 3355 (Promotion Point Worksheet). Her NCOIC and OIC, who is a psychologist, wanted her to appear before the soldier of the month/quarter board as soon as 60 days from the date of the counseling on 5 December 2002. If they thought she had a personality disorder and that she should be discharged from the Army they would not have put a plan in place for a promotion to sergeant. Also, she was will and ready to prepare to do whatever was necessary to make it happen. These documented facts are in direct opposition to what the doctor stated at the time of her discharge, that a personality disorder was a deeply ingrained, maladaptive pattern of behavior of long duration, the severity of which results in significant impairment in the ability to function in a military environment. She was only in the hospital for 5 days compared to the 7 months she was in country. r. She believes the pictures in her packet give more insight into her personality and character. It is evidence of what she was like overall for the duration of her enlistment. These pictures span 1 year and 6 months, from BCT through one month before her discharge and show she did not have a maladaptive pattern of behavior of a long duration. It was documented she had short spells of depression, but that was not the long duration of her enlistment. Even in her counseling write-ups, she was said to have been teary; that does not constitute a personality disorder. Also keep in mind that her responsibility as a Mental Health Specialist was to counsel Soldiers in distress. She had a situation where a Soldier threatened to commit suicide and also had to counsel another Soldier who had anxiety so bad that he bit his knuckles raw. She was in very stressful and highly emotional situations on a daily basis. s. She has the ability to function in a military environment and was proud and honored to serve her country. She raised her right hand and continues to take her oath seriously. Less than 1 percent of the population enlists into the military. She took the initiative and had the desire to actively pursue working in a military environment. Even now, she continues to work within a military environment as the District Director/Veteran Services Officer for Eastern Essex Department of Veteran Services. She has provided ample evidence of her lover for the military and our veterans, which also proves she is able to function in a military environment. t. In 2015, when she found out there were remains of a local World War II veteran with no known kin, she organized a memorial service for him to be buried at a State Veteran Cemetery so he could be honored and remembered. She invited as many veterans and veterans groups she could reach. Over 150 attended the service and she accepted the flag on his behalf. When she learned there was a Korean Ambassador for Peace Medal, issued by the South Korean government, she worked to find as many Korean War veterans as she could, putting an ad in the newspaper. She organized a ceremony for them to be publically honored where the Consul General gave a speech to the over 150 people in attendance, expressing how appreciative the Republic of Korea is for the U.S. service members involved in the war. Related to the event, she has included a photo of her with the Secretary of Veterans Services, the Korean Consul General, Senator B____ T____, and a retired colonel, a thank you note from her Member of Congress and a thank you note from a surviving spouse. Additionally, when she found out there was a World War II Prisoner of War (POW) in her district who never received his POW medal and was in hospice, she arranged for the medal to be presented to him in front of his family 2 weeks before he passed away. She has included numerous newspaper articles, photos, a Certificate of Recognition, and two challenge coins she received all related to her tireless work for veterans. u. She does not currently take any mental health medication and has not taken any since 2003. Her Neuropsychological Assessment from May 2019 confirms she does not have a personality disorder. She leads a very happy and successful like with her daughter. She earned a Master’s Degree and has worked at director level positions for over 10 years. To correct her record is a reasonable request and does not have any consequences in regard to benefits nor does it have any monetary value. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 August 2001 and was awarded the MOS 91X. 4. She was awarded a Certificate of Achievement on 7 November 2002, for outstanding performance as a clinical interviewer for the Psychological Screening Validation Study with Soldiers from the 1st Infantry Division in Vilseck, Germany, conducted by the U.S. Army Medical Research Unit-Europe, Heidelberg, Germany, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research. She was also awarded a plaque from the U.S. Army Medical Research Unit-Europe in recognition of outstanding service, Fall 2002. 5. A DA Form 4856 shows the applicant was counseled on 12 November 2002 by her OIC, CPT R____ J____, with regard to her attempt to obtain command sponsorship for her husband over the past 4 weeks. a. It states she encountered a number of obstacles in this process and because very discouraged about the matter as well as about her potential to remain on active duty service. This discouragement also became apparent in her clinical work in that she had been observed to be tearful and upset at the clinic on a number of occasions. b. She was encouraged to get help with her command sponsorship issues. She was also urged to either resolve her personal issues or seek professional assistance from the Wurzburg Department of Psychiatry. 6. A second DA Form 4856 shows the applicant was counseled on 5 December 2002, by her NCOIC, Staff Sergeant (SSG) A____ F____ as part of her initial counseling by him after his return from deployment in Kosovo and to establish standards. She was informed of the expectations of her as a Soldier regarding appearance, annual training, MOS proficiency. She was also informed that the company had asked for promotion board recommendations for both of the enlisted counselors at the facility and neither her NCOCI nor her OIC felt either of them were properly prepared or trained to appear before the unit’s promotion board. However, it was felt that after 60 days of monitored study and preparation she should be able to successfully appear before the Soldier of the Month/Quarter Board and after 90 days before the Promotion Board 7. The applicant provided an activities report published by the U.S. Army medical Research Unit-Europe, Walter Reed Army Institute of Research titled “WRAIR Forward” dated December 2002, wherein her name is listed as a member of the research team for an October 2002 study designed to assess the impact of psychological debriefing on Soldier health and well-being. 8. Her records contain a Supplemental Medical Record, titled Clinical Pathway Cover Sheet, dated 11 January 2003. a. The document shows the applicant was admitted to LRMC Inpatient Psychiatry from the Wuerzburg Clinic on the date of the form, 11 January 2003. b. Her collaborative concerns were suicidal ideation/acting out, anxiety/inability to relax, and feelings of hopelessness. The diagnoses that were circled were depression not otherwise specified and adjustment disorder. Personality disorder is an option on the form that is not circled. 9. The applicant provided the first page of Standard Form 88 which shows she underwent a medical examination on 15 January 2003 for the purpose of separation. The categories of “neurologic” and “psychiatric” are marked normal. It is unknown what the subsequent pages of the form show. 10. Her LRMC Inpatient Psychiatry Discharge Note, dated 16 January2003 shows: a. The applicant was admitted on 11 January 2003 and discharged on 16 January 2003 after referral from Wuerzburg clinic. b. Under hospital course it states the applicant was initially irritable and tearful, but less labile as she progressed. She denied suicidal ideation and was tolerating Paxil well. Her unit supported her administrative separation. c. Her diagnoses are listed as major depressive disorder, alcohol abuse, personality disorder, not otherwise specified, and acne vulgaris. d. She had a follow-up psychiatric care appointment scheduled at the Wuerzburg Clinic on 22 January 2003. Her discharge limitation was no alcohol. 11. A Report of Mental Status Evaluation, completed by the Chief, Inpatient Psychiatry, LRMC, dated 16 January 2003 shows: a. The applicant’s behavior was calm and appropriate and her thinking process normal. Her mood or affect was labile, at time tearful, at times irritable. She denied thoughts of suicide at that time. Her memory, concentration, end energy level were fair. b. Her diagnoses were listed as: * personality disorder, not otherwise specified * alcohol abuse * major depressive disorder, severe, without psychotic features c. Her proposed treatment was to follow-up with Wuerzburg Mental Health Clinic and her precautions were no alcohol d. With regard to her suitability for service, she was found to meet the retention standards of Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness) as there was no psychiatric disease or defect that warranted a Medical Evaluation Board; however, criteria for administrative separation for personality disorder were present. e. The condition and problems presented by the applicant were not, in the opinion of the examiner, amenable to hospitalization, treatment, transfer, disciplinary action, or another type of duty within the military. It was unlikely that efforts to rehabilitate or develop her into a satisfactory member of the military would be successful. f. The applicant was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by the command. Psychiatric factors indicated that administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, for personality disorder, would be in the best interests of the applicant and the military. It was recommended the command waive rehabilitative efforts and support her continued mental health treatment pending administrative separation. 12. A partial DD Form 2807-1, page 3 of 3 pages, dated 28 January 2003, shows the applicant was under stress at work and was on Trazodone (a sedative and anti- depressant) and Paxil (used to treat depression and anxiety disorders). It also states she was admitted to LRMC from 11 January 2003 through 16 January 2003, for diagnoses of depression not otherwise specified and adjustment disorder; she was doing better mentally. 13. On 31 January 2003, she was notified by her immediate commander of his initiation of action to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, for personality disorder, with an honorable discharge. He initiated this action based on her diagnosis by a mental health psychiatrist as having a personality disorder, not otherwise specified, which is a deeply ingrained, maladaptive pattern of behavior of long duration that interfered with her ability to perform her duty and function effectively in the military environment. She was advised of her right to consult with Counsel and submit written statements in her own behalf. Records indicate her separation was initiated on the same day. 14. On 4 February 2003, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed action to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13 for personality disorder. She acknowledged having been afforded the opportunity to consult with Counsel and requested an appointment with consulting Counsel. 15. Her battalion commander recommended approval of the separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13 for personality disorder with an Honorable Discharge Certificate and he recommended waiving any further requirements for rehabilitation 16. On 7 February 2003, the approval authority directed the applicant’s honorable discharge under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13 for personality disorder and waived further requirements for rehabilitation. 17. Her DD Form 214 shows: a. She was honorably discharged on 14 February 2003 after 1 year, 6 months, and 8 days of net active service, of which she completed 9 months and 15 days of foreign service. b. Her separation authority is listed as Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13 and her narrative reason for separation as personality disorder. Her separation code is listed as “JFX” (Personality Disorder) and RE code is “3.” c. It does not reflect award of the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Overseas Service Ribbon, or a Certificate of Achievement. 18. In a similar but unrelated request, the applicant previously applied to the ABCMR requesting a change to her DD Form 214 to reflect physical disability discharge based on epileptic seizures in lieu of administrative discharge due to personality disorder. On 10 August 2006, her request was denied by the Board because the evidence presented did not demonstrate he existence of a probable error or injustice. 19. The applicant provided numerous letters of recommendation from various professors at the University of Florida and Framingham State College who attest to her considerable personal initiative, intelligence, conscientiousness, enthusiasm, independence and excellent rapport with staff and clients alike. 20. The applicant also provided several photographs and numerous newspaper articles detailing multiple successful initiatives she was involved in as a Veterans Services Director, challenge coins, a certificate of recognition, and personal thank-you notes, including one from her Member of Congress thanking her for planning the Korean Ambassador for Peace Medal Ceremony for local Korean War Veterans and all the other work she does on behalf of Veterans every day. 21. A Neuropsychological Assessment completed by Dr. C____ L____, dated 2 May 2019, found: a. The criteria for a personality disorder were not sufficiently met by the applicant because there were no demonstrated and significant impairments in identity of self- direction and the impairments noted in testing wee better understood as normative for the applicant’s sociocultural environment. b. There was no specific diagnosis that could be made for the applicant at that current time. She seemed to be functioning well in both her home and work life, consistently for a significant period of time. 22. On 30 March 2020, the ARBA medical advisor provided an advisory opinion, which states the medical advisor recommended removing the diagnosis of personality disorder from the applicant’s DD Form 214, changing her narrative reason for discharge and separation code. With regard to changing her RE code, under current accession standards, a prior diagnosis of major depressive disorder would require a waiver for reentry. A copy of the complete medical advisory was provided to the Board for their review and consideration. 23. The applicant was provided a copy of the advisory opinion on 3 April 2020 and given an opportunity to submit comments, but did not respond. BOARD DISCUSSION: 1. After review of the application and all evidence, the Board found relief is warranted. The applicant’s contentions, her military record, and regulatory guidance were carefully considered. The Board considered the medical records and the review and conclusions of the advising official. The Board concurred with the medical advisory opinion and recommended removing the diagnosis of personality disorder from the applicant’s DD Form 214, changing her narrative reason for discharge, and separation code; thereby warranting correction in this case. 2. Prior to closing the case, the Board did note the analyst of record administrative notes below, and recommended the corrections be completed to more accurately depict the military service of the applicant. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF :X :X :X GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. In addition to the administrative notes annotated by the Analyst of Record (below the signature), the Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending her DD Form 214 for the period ending 14 February 2003 by showing in: * item 25 (Separation Authority): Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17 * item 26 (Separation Code): JFV * item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation): Condition, Not a Disability 2. The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to her request for a change in the reentry eligibility (RE) code and the request for award of the Overseas Service Ribbon. I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S): A review of the applicant’s records show she was awarded or authorized additional awards not listed on her DD Form 214. As a result, amend her DD Form 214 with the through date of 14 February 2003, by adding the following: * Global War on Terrorism Service Medal * Certificate of Achievement REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, United States Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3 year statute of limitations if the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Paragraph 5-13 states a service member may be separated for personality disorder not amounting to disability that interferes with assignment to or performance of duty when so diagnosed by a psychiatrist or doctoral-level clinical psychologist privileged to conduct mental health evaluations. A Soldier being separated under this section will be awarded a character of service of honorable, under honorable conditions, or an entry-level separation. b. Paragraph 5-17, states commanders who are special court-martial convening authorities may approve separation under this paragraph on the basis of other physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability that potentially interfere with assignment to or performance of duty. A recommendation for separation must be supported by documentation confirming the existence of the physical or mental condition. Members may be separated for physical or mental conditions not amounting to disability sufficiently severe that the Soldier's ability to effectively perform military duties is significantly impaired. 3. Army Regulation 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program) covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army, U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard. Table 3-1 (U.S. Army Reentry Eligibility Codes) includes a list of RE codes. a. RE code 1 applies to Soldiers completing their terms of active service who are considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army. They are qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met. b. RE code 3 applies to Soldiers who are not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waivable. They are ineligible for enlistment unless a waiver is granted. 4. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty and the associated SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. a. It states SPD code JFX is the appropriate code to assign to Soldiers discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, due to personality disorder. b. SPD code JFV is the appropriate code to assign to Soldiers discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-17, due to a condition, not a disability, interfering with performance of duty. c. SPD code KNL is the appropriate code to assign to Soldiers discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service. 5. The SPD/RE Code Cross-Reference Table provides instructions for determining the RE code for Regular Army and Reserve Component Soldiers being separated. The Table in effect at the time stipulates an RE code of 3 will be assigned to members separated with an SPD code of JFX, JFV, and KNL. 6. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military Awards) prescribes Army policy, criteria, and administrative instructions concerning individual and unit military awards. a. The Global War on Terrorism Service Medal is authorized for award to members of the Armed Forces of the United States who have participated in Global War on Terrorism operations outside of the areas of eligibility (AOE) designated for award of the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Afghanistan Campaign Medal, or Iraq Campaign Medal. All Soldiers on active duty, including Reserve Component Soldiers mobilized or Army National Guard Soldiers activated, on or after 11 September 2001 to a date to be determined having served 30 consecutive days or 60 nonconsecutive days are authorized the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal. b. The Overseas Service Ribbon was established by the Secretary of the Army on 10 April 1981. Effective 1 August 1981, all members of the Active Army, Army National Guard, and Army Reserve in an active Reserve status are eligible for the award for successful completion of overseas tours. Overseas tour credit is outlined in Army Regulation 614-30 (Overseas Service). c. The Certificate of Achievement may be used by a commander to recognize periods of faithful service, acts, or achievements which do not meet the standards required for decorations by issuing to individual U.S. military personnel a DA Form 2442 (Certificate of Achievement) or a certificate of achievement of local design. 7. Army Regulation 614-30 prescribes policies pertinent to overseas permanent change of station moves, overseas tour lengths, overseas tour curtailments, time-on-station, eligibility for overseas service criteria, voluntary and involuntary overseas tour extension, the Overseas Tour Extension Incentive Program, and consecutive overseas tours. a. A Soldier will normally only be credited with completion of an overseas tour when the full prescribed term of the required overseas service has been served. The prescribed overseas tour length in a long-tour area is 2 years for an unaccompanied Soldier or 3 years for an accompanied Soldier. b. Table 3-2 (Award of tour credit and adjustment of date eligible to return from overseas/date of return from overseas (DROS)) states a Soldier will be credited with a completed tour and awarded a new DROS if he/she serves to within 60 days of completion of the prescribed tour or serves less than the normal prescribed overseas tour and the curtailment is for the convenience of the Government and through no request from or fault of the Soldier. //NOTHING FOLLOWS// ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20180003245 15 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1