MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:         

	BOARD DATE:            4 February 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12350
   AR1998012687

	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:  That his reentry (RE) code on his DD Form 214 be changed from RE-4 to RE-1. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he should not have received an RE-4 code since his brigade commander recommended that his appeal to the bar to reenlistment be favorably considered and that the original action be overturned.  In support of his application, he submits a letter of explanation wherein he states that he exceeded the 3 year time limit because he was unaware he could submit such a request until recently.  He stated that he is currently in the Army Reserve serving as a helicopter mechanic/flight engineer instructor and that he had an opportunity to go back to active duty.  However, when his request reached PERSCOM it was denied because of the RE code on his DD Form 214.  He also submitted eight letters of support which were enclosures to his appeal of his bar to reenlistment.      

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

He enlisted on 11 September 1979 and remained on active duty through continuous reenlistments.  He served in Korea for approximately 6 years and was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 23 April 1986.

On 31 July 1985 nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and 45 days of extra duty. 

On 10 February 1990, while serving as a recruiter, NJP was again imposed against the applicant for violating a lawful general regulation by engaging in an improper social relationship with a member of the delayed entry program.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to pay grade E-5 (suspended for 6 months) and a forfeiture of pay (suspended for 3 months).

The applicant received his third NJP on 16 October 1992 for disobeying a lawful order.

On 7 January 1994 the calendar year 1993 Sergeant First Class/ANCOC Promotion/Selection Board determined that the applicant should be barred from reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP).  The basis for the determination was two NCO Evaluation Reports and two records of NJP which indicated the applicant displayed deficiencies and/or weaknesses in discipline and performance/efficiency.  

On 7 February 1994 the applicant appealed his bar to reenlistment under the QMP to the Department of the Army Standby Advisory Review Board (STAB).  The applicant’s chain of command provided two letters recommending that his appeal to the bar to reenlistment under the QMP be favorably considered and overturned.  

The STAB determination is not contained in the available records.  However, 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.

He was honorably released from active duty on 5 May 1994 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8, based on reduction in force.  He was issued a code of RE-4.  He had served 14 years, 7 months, and 25 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 Board noted the applicant’s command support of his appeal to the bar to reenlistment under the QMP; however, the applicant was properly discharged in accordance with applicable regulations with the appropriate RE code. 

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

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:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___jhl___  __vbc ___  __aao___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12350/AR1998012687	
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.