MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:         

	BOARD DATE:            4 February 1999 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12670
   AR1998012365

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		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, that his report of separation (NGB Form 22) be corrected to show that he has a reentry (RE) code of RE-1 instead of RE-3.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was unjustly given a defective enlistment due to inadequacies and/or errors by the recruiting staff and/or command.  In support of his application, he submits two letters of explanation stating that he was scheduled to ship for the New Jersey Army National Guard as military occupational specialty (MOS) 95B in March 1996.  Upon his arrival at the Military Entrance Processing Station (MEPS), he was informed that he wound not be shipped under MOS 95B for “reasons unclear”.  He further states that since he would not choose another MOS he was discharged for failure to ship due to defective enlistment and received an RE-3 code.  He contends the “defective enlistment” is the direct result of inadequacies by the recruiting staff or MEPS and he should not be penalized with a reenlistment code that could reflect poorly upon him should he ever seek military service in the future. 

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

In 1995 he enlisted in the USAR under the delayed entry program (DEP) and subsequently enlisted in the New Jersey Army National Guard on 15 February 1996 for a period of 8 years. 

The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are not present in the available records.  However, the records show that he received an uncharacterized discharge under the provisions of National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200, paragraph 8-26u, for defective enlistment agreement on 16 May 1996.  He had served 3 months and 2 days of inactive service and was issued a reentry code of RE-3. 

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 processing into the Regular Army and the USAR.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes.
The regulation also outlines that a waiver is required for any applicant who was separated or discharged from any Component of the U.S. Armed Forces for defective enlistment. 

RE-1 applies to persons completing their term of active service who are considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army.  

RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waivable. 

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 to the contrary, it is presumed that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.

2.  The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that the RE code issued to him at the time of his discharge was in error or unjust. 

3.  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.

4.  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:

________  __vbc___  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__jhl____  ________  __aao___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12670/AR1998012365	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	1999/02/04	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	 	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	 	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  100.030		
2.  110.000		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.