MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            3 February 1999 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12568
   AR1998012596

	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:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred K. McCoy		Member	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		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 reentry (RE) code on his DD Form 214 be changed to reflect a more favorable RE code that will allow him to reenlist in the USAR.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That the separation authority, the separation code and the narrative reason for separation do not coincide with the RE code of RE-4.   

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

He enlisted on 12 June 1975 and remained on active duty through continuous reenlistments.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 5 July 1983.

On 15 December 1989 the calendar year 1989 Sergeant First Class Selection Board determined that the applicant should be barred from reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP).  The bases for the determination were four Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reports which indicated the applicant displayed deficiencies and/or weaknesses in competence and leadership.  

The applicant appealed his bar to reenlistment under the QMP to the Department of the Army Standby Advisory Review Board (STAB), however, his appeal was denied on 29 May 1990. 

Subsequent to the applicant’s appeal, the Enlisted Qualitative Early Separation Program was approved for implementation.  This program requires the separation of soldiers with a disapproved appeal to a Department of the Army imposed bar to reenlistment.  The STAB directed that the applicant be separated from the service no later than 1 October 1990 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8.  The STAB also directed that the narrative reason for his separation would be “Reduction in Authorized Strength – Qualitative Early Transition Program” and that his RE code would be RE-4.  In addition, his separation program designator (SPD) would be “JCC”.

Accordingly, he was honorably discharged on 1 October 1990.  He had served 
15 years, 3 months, and 20 days of total active service.

Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 16-8 of this regulation sets forth the requirements for early separation of enlisted personnel due to reduction in force, strength limitations, or budgetary constraints.  The service of personnel separated under this paragraph will be characterized as honorable.

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.
   
RE-4 indicates that a person is not qualified for continued Army service by virtue of being separated from the service with a nonwaivable disqualification such as a Department of the Army imposed bar to reenlistment.
 
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.  The applicant was properly discharged in accordance with applicable regulations with no indication of any of the applicant’s rights.

2.  The separation authority, separation code, narrative reason for separation, and the RE code used in the applicant’s case are correct and were applied in accordance with the applicable regulations.

3.  The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record sufficient justification for upgrading his RE code.

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:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__sac___  __mdm__  __fkm ___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12568/AR1998012596	
SUFFIX		
RECON	 	
DATE BOARDED	1999/02/03	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	 	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	 	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  100.030		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.