MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           20 January 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC8-05480A
                                              AR1999014572

	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. P. A. Castle		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr. Robert W. Garrett		Member	
	Mr. Deborah S. Jacobs		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, reconsideration of his previous request to correct his records by overturning the separation action under Qualitative Management Program (QMP) and permitting him to re-enter the service.

APPLICANT STATES:  In a letter forwarded through his Congressman, he contends, in effect, that in the absence of documentation showing why the commanding general in Germany did not support his appeal to overcome the QMP and denied his request for a personal appearance that there is insufficient evidence to justify his separation.  He also argues that the reason for separation (reduction in force) rather that QMP shows that there is a cover-up.  He further contends that he received a reenlistment code (RE) of RE-4 preventing him from re-entering the service and he should have received RE-3.  In effect, he contends no one has properly considered the previous documentation of which there was twelve tabs of documentation.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION:  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum of consideration (MOC) prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on       25 February 1998 (COPY ATTACHED).

The applicant’s contention that relief is appropriate unless the commanding general’s decision is justified and that he was denied a personal request to meet with the general constitutes new argument.

On 31 August 1994 the applicant submitted a rebuttal to the general officer memorandum of reprimand.  On 14 September 1994 he submitted a request for a commander’s inquiry under Article 107 “false official statement”.  

A 22 October 1997 letter, notified the applicant that his appeal to the DA Imposed Bar to reenlistment was denied.  The letter explains that the Secretary of the Army as a result of budgetary restraints will direct the early release of soldiers with a QMP bar to reenlistment and that the narrative reason for separation “reduction in force” will be placed on the DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

The same 22 October 1997 letter mentioned above states that the re-entry eligibility code for the soldiers being released early because of a DA Imposed Bar to reenlistment will be RE-4.

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 and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the US Army 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.

In a 17 March 1998 letter to the Department of the Army Inspector General (DAIG) the applicant requested assistance regarding the denial of his appeal.  He wrote that in the commanding general’s letter, the reason for the denial was that “potential for future service to the Army in positions of increased responsibility is very limited.”  The letter and the record are void of a request to personally see the commander.

Army regulation 15-185, paragraph 10c provides, in pertinent part, that reconsideration of a Board decision will be made when additional evidence or other matter including, but not limited to factual allegations or arguments, that were not previously available to the Board has been submitted.

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 had access to all the letters, evidential statements, decisional documents, and the applicant’s personal contentions in the previous consideration but failed to address it in the previous MOC.  There is no evidence that the applicant requested either a personal appearance or that the commanding general refused his request nor is there evidence that the commanding general must honor such requests.

2.  Evidence of record shows that the applicant was told the reason the commanding general denied his appeal to the DA Imposed Bar to reenlistment.

3.  Without evidence to the contrary the Board must presume the chain of command acted in an impartial and unprejudicial manner in accordance with law and regulatory guidance.

4.  The applicant’s RE code is appropriate in accordance with the reason for his discharge.

5.  The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

6.  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

___JH	__  ___REG__  __FDJ___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-05480A/AR199014572	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990120	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1998/02/28	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .601-280 . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES        1.	134.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.