Posted on May 8, 2015
Can you re-enlist after a 5-13 discharge (12 years ago)?
19.9K
18
23
3
3
0
I need some recruiter expertise here, RP.
Got a vet that was discharged under 5-13...12 years ago. It was a false diagnosis. He is looking to re-enlist. He can provide documentation that the original diagnosis was erroneous.
Thoughts?
Got a vet that was discharged under 5-13...12 years ago. It was a false diagnosis. He is looking to re-enlist. He can provide documentation that the original diagnosis was erroneous.
Thoughts?
Re-enlistment
Army National Guard
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 12
3
3
0
It all depends on his RE code.
Little known fact is it is more than just a 2 digit code which is on his personal copy of the DD-214.
Pretty much the way things are right now, if it's other than a 1A it will be highly likely that he would even get a second look, even by the Guard.
I wasn't a full time recruiter, But I was NCOIC of my unit recruiting team from 1994-1998.
I'm sure things have even changed since then.
Little known fact is it is more than just a 2 digit code which is on his personal copy of the DD-214.
Pretty much the way things are right now, if it's other than a 1A it will be highly likely that he would even get a second look, even by the Guard.
I wasn't a full time recruiter, But I was NCOIC of my unit recruiting team from 1994-1998.
I'm sure things have even changed since then.
(3)
(0)
As some have stated the RE code will dictate a lot. Then National Guard is usually more willing to work with someone in this situation. Active duty wouldn't touch it. But if you have a RE code of 4 it is pretty much a no-go.
This being a personality disorder discharge I am pretty much going to say that it may be a lost cause, even for the guard. The Army doesn't want to even mess with anything like this. If you recall Bergdahl was discharged from the Coast Guard for this most likely. The Army let him in and we all know how that turned out.
If I were the officer at MEPs I wouldn't touch it. There are more than enough people trying to join with no issues. Something had to trigger the discharge. A personality disorder is something that really isn't something that you kick someone out for on accident. Even if they have a new assessment you are going up against what a military Doc said. There is a lot of risk of letting someone in even if they have a false or bad assessment. It is just a difficult time for anyone to get in if you are not near the perfect candidate.
"Chapter 5-13 (Personality Disorder). If a physician trained in psychiatry or a licensed
clinical psychologist notifies the commander that the Soldier has a deeply ingrained personality disorder and this disorder is so severe that the Soldier’s ability to function effectively in the military environment is significantly impaired, then the commander may initiate a Chapter 5-13 separation action."
This being a personality disorder discharge I am pretty much going to say that it may be a lost cause, even for the guard. The Army doesn't want to even mess with anything like this. If you recall Bergdahl was discharged from the Coast Guard for this most likely. The Army let him in and we all know how that turned out.
If I were the officer at MEPs I wouldn't touch it. There are more than enough people trying to join with no issues. Something had to trigger the discharge. A personality disorder is something that really isn't something that you kick someone out for on accident. Even if they have a new assessment you are going up against what a military Doc said. There is a lot of risk of letting someone in even if they have a false or bad assessment. It is just a difficult time for anyone to get in if you are not near the perfect candidate.
"Chapter 5-13 (Personality Disorder). If a physician trained in psychiatry or a licensed
clinical psychologist notifies the commander that the Soldier has a deeply ingrained personality disorder and this disorder is so severe that the Soldier’s ability to function effectively in the military environment is significantly impaired, then the commander may initiate a Chapter 5-13 separation action."
(3)
(0)
Domingo King
I have a question.I was a Army reservist. I'm trying to reenlist in the Colorado national guard after being out since 2002.I was originally out out in June 2001 due to unsatisfactory participation is what I was told. I didn't receive any paperwork when I left and just got my papers from vetrecs. It states I have a Under Honorable conditions discharge -misconduct due to a failed drug test in May 2001 but dates when it was processed in Jan 2002. In your opinion am I an auto NoGo?
(0)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
Domingo King - You would be a no go most likely. But if you failed a drug test and then went AWOL I am sure that you have a RE that is pretty rough. Most likely a RE code 4 but that is just guessing. But then i don't really know. You would have to get up with the Army to figure that out.
(0)
(0)
Domingo King
My final discharge is a under Honorable discharge and my paperwork seemed a little messed up. The Army HR usually had info on everything except anything that had to do with this. But a disorder is ludacris. But I mean gosh I will get my point of summary next week or 2 to let me know. I appreciate the response. I appreciate everything I can get. I wasn't charged with AWOL only unsatisfactory participation. Which is The original reason for me being discharged. Then a year later he signed a paper stating I failed a drug test. Which was news to me this month. I mean an Underhonorable Conditions discharge isn't so to speak bad (though my pride makes me hang my head low bc of it) but reenlisting is a hope of mine. I mean I was a kid who went from having a perfect life to losing everything at 21. I didn't have a NCO who told me the things that could have been offered to me at the time, which isn't their fault, but it would have been good lol.
(0)
(0)
2
2
0
It would depend on each state and what their respective numbers are this year. Everything is a crap shoot, if a recruiter is good on numbers, won't touch the headache. Will the MEPS station touch him, maybe, maybe not.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google