MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:         

	BOARD DATE:            4 February 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12342
   AR1998012689

	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 be changed from RE-3 to RE-2 and that his Narrative Reason for Separation on his DD Form 214 be changed to Hardship.   
  
APPLICANT STATES:  That he desires to have his RE code changed to allow him to enlist in the Regular Army.  In support of his application, he submits a sworn statement citing that he requested a hardship discharge in 1986 to care for his ill father in Puerto Rico and that the condition no longer exists and he wants to return to service.  He also submits two letters of support from recruiters.  

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

He originally enlisted in the USAR through the delayed entry program (DEP) on 10 March 1984 with a projected active duty date of 29 May 1984.  On 1 June 1984 he enlisted and entered active duty for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Fort Riley, Kansas, for duty as a field artillery repairer.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-3 on 1 June 1985.

On 15 August 1985 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for altering a public record.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-1, a forfeiture of pay and 14 days of extra duty and restriction.

On 28 May 1986 the applicant requested reassignment to Fort Buchanan, Puerto, Rico, due to extreme family problems.  He cited that his family was dependent on him and they began experiencing problems when he entered active duty, he was the only son at home and his father had an alcohol problem and was suffering from endogenaus sicosis.  Additionally, the applicant requested consideration for a hardship discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 if his request for reassignment was disapproved.   

On 11 June 1986 the commander disapproved the applicant’s request for a compassionate reassignment and approved his request for hardship discharge based on dependency under the provisions of chapter 6, AR 635-200.  

The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows he was honorably released from active duty under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 6-3a, for dependency and transferred to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training) on 26 June 1986.  He had served 2 years and 25 days of total active service.  He was issued a RE code of RE-3.

At the time of his application to this Board, he was serving in pay grade E-5 in the USAR. 

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.  AR 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the US Reserve.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes, including RA RE codes.

RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.  It also applies to persons separated under the  Trainee Discharge Program (TDP), hardship or dependency.  Personnel with an RE-3 Code are ineligible for enlistment unless a waiver is granted (Persons with TDP – Overweight noted on DD Form 214 are eligible for USAR enlistment/reenlistment without waiver for RE-3 code.  However, applicant must meet standards of AR 600-9).  A two year waiting period not required for overweight (TDP) if applicant meets AR 600-9 for RA or USAR enlistment. Certain persons who have received nonjudicial punishment are also disqualified, as are persons with bars to reenlistment, and those discharged under the provisions of chapters 9, 10, 13, 14, and 16 of Army Regulation 635-200.

RE-2 applies to persons separated before completing a contracted period of service whose reenlistment is not contemplated.  It also applies to persons separated for pregnancy under AR 635-200, chapter 8.  Personnel with an RE-2 Code are fully eligible to enlist.   

Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at that time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 6 of that regulation provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel because of genuine dependency or hardship.  An application for such separation will be approved when a service member can substantiate that his situation or immediate family's situation has been aggravated to an excessive degree since enlistment, that the condition is not temporary and that discharge will improve the situation.

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 per his request and in accordance with applicable regulations.  The basis for his request was that his family’s well being was dependent on his presence.

2.  The RE code and the Narrative Reason for Separation used in applicant’s case are correct and were applied in accordance with the applicable regulations. It should also be noted that the RE code is the same for both dependency and hardship discharges.

3.  The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that the RE code issued to him was in error or unjust.

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	AC98-12342/AR1998012689	
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.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.