MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            20 January 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11754

	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	
	Mr. Ed Clark		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr. Robert W. Garrett		Member	
	Ms. 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:  That his reentry eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow his reentry into active duty or Reserve service.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was advanced to pay grade E-2 during basic training due to his motivation and high performance in all tasks; that he did not get the opportunity to voice his concerns or opposition to his separation; that he feels that he could have served in another military occupational specialty; and that his goal was to become a drill sergeant by the year 2000.

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

That, with a history of a police record of assault and battery on 5 May 1987 and simple assault on 13 August 1987, and an approved waiver for an AFQT (Armed Forces Qualification Test) score of 27 percent, the applicant was enlisted in the Army National Guard (ARNG)."  Documents pertaining to his service and separation from the ARNG are not in the available records; however, in a subsequent letter, he wrote, in part, "When I enlisted in the U.S. Army Tennessee National Guard in December of 1991, I had every intention of serving…However, I married my wife in October of 1991 and being newly-weds, were not ready for the separation from each other during basic training.  This caused problem after problem for me and my wife, so I decided to not return to my AIT (Advanced Individual Training) in order to save my marriage."

On 12 November 1996, after submitting a letter explaining that he had been unable to find employment since 1995 that would pay him enough money and that it was time for him to get serious about his future, and after obtaining a waiver for RE code and grade, he was enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 6 years, in pay grade E-1, for service in military occupational specialty 67T, helicopter repairer.

A General Counseling Form dated 11 February 1997 shows that the applicant requested to see his commander to request that he be transferred to the Reserve or National Guard because he felt he was not making enough money in an active duty status.  He was advised that this was not an option available to him.  He was provided the opportunity to consult with an Army Community Service budget counselor.

A Statement of Incident dated 19 February 1997 and signed by the applicant's commander shows that the applicant attempted to deceive the commander into giving him a special pass purportedly based on financial and automobile insurance problems; that when confronted by his drill sergeant with the deception he became rude and began to shout; and that he subsequently displayed aggressive body language, including clenching his fist, towards his commander, failed to properly address his commander after being directed to do so, and made no attempt to correct his aggressive disposition after repeated warnings.
A General Counseling Form dated 20 February 1997 shows that the applicant lied to his commander concerning financial problems; that he was overheard in a telephone conversation telling someone that he was assigned a buddy in order for the cadre to provoke him into hitting someone; and that he was disrespectful in replying to his commander during a conversation.  His drill sergeant wrote on the form, in part, "He is out of control and a habitual liar."

A General Counseling Form dated 20 March 1997 shows that the applicant was found not to be participating in class; and that he stated at that time that he did not want to participate in training as a helicopter repairer.  He was advised that he could be separated from the service with a general discharge which might result in substantial prejudice in civilian life.

On 20 March 1997 the applicant was evaluated by a psychiatrist.  The psychiatrist's clinical diagnostic impression was "Axis I: Occupational Problem.  Axis II: Narcissistic Personality Traits.  The applicant was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by command.

On 24 March 1997 the Chief, Academic Division recommended that the applicant be eliminated from training as a helicopter repairer because of academic deficiency, failure to progress, and "SM does not want to be a 67T."  In a separate note he wrote "I have recommended elimination [from training] only because there is no block for separation/chapter.  This guy is lost.  We don't need to burden another Branch."  The recommendation was approved by the director of the course. 

On 10 April 1997 the applicant was notified by his commander that he was being recommended for separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11, Entry level performance and conduct (Trainee Discharge Program).  The commander wrote, in part, that the applicant had been counseled regarding his lack of performance and lack of motivation by his instructors, the branch chief, the first sergeant, and his drill sergeant; and that he had failed to pass the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) since arriving in the unit.  The applicant declined the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf and the recommendation was approved by the convening authority.

On 25 April 1997, after serving on active duty for 5 months and 14 days of his 
6-year term of enlistment, he was honorably discharged.  His separation document, DD Form 214, shows his RE Code as 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 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.  RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant was eliminated from training as a helicopter repairer because of academic deficiency, failure to progress, and because he was not motivated to complete his training as a helicopter repairer.  Additionally, the evidence of record indicates a lack of self-discipline and an inability to pass the APFT.  Accordingly, he was properly separated from active duty under the provisions of the Trainee Discharge Program.

2.  Notwithstanding the applicant's contentions, the circumstances in this case show that the assigned RE-3 code was and still is appropriate. 

3.  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______  RWG___  DSJ   ____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-11754	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20 January 1999	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19970425	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, CHAP 11 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	TDP	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.	110.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.