MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  29 April 1999     
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12108

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ann M. Campbell		Chairperson	
	Mr. Edwin S. Castle		Member	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		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, correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show a reentry eligibility (RE) code which will allow reenlistment.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That the conditions for her separation no longer exist.  A copy of a court order is submitted in support of her request.

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

She enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 4 January 1979 for 3 years.  She was initially trained in military occupational specialty (MOS) 71L (Administrative Specialist).  Later, she was retrained into MOS 36K (Tactical Wire Operations Specialist).  On 28 August 1981, she reenlisted for a period of 4 years, and MOS 36K.

Evidence of record indicates that on 3 February 1981, the applicant married another service member.  Both service members were assigned to Germany. Shortly, after getting married they began experiencing marital problems, they were legally separated and were pending a divorce.  Their two children were returned to the United States to live with the applicant's mother-in-law.  

On 8 April 1985, the applicant submitted an "Affidavit' and a DA Form
4187 (Personnel Action) requesting approval for a separation under the provisions of Chapter 6, Army Regulation 635 200, for sole parenthood.  She stated that she felt it was impossible for her to care for her two minor children and meet her service obligations.  She stated that her older son was experiencing adjustment problems.  He had been retained in the 5th grade and was still not making progress.  The younger son had bronchitis and was periodically hospitalized.  Childcare was causing financial difficulty, and the situation in general was causing both emotional and physical problems. 

On 8 April 1985, the applicant's commander recommended approval of the applicant's request for separation.  He stated that she had been a good soldier; she had done an excellent job in maintaining her duty performance inspite of her personal situation.  Additionally, he stated that he felt her ability to meet worldwide deployment was questionable.  The intermediate commander also recommended approval of the separation action

On 15 April 1985, the separation authority approved the separation action and directed that the applicant be separated under the provisions of Chapter 6, Army Regulation 635 200, by reason of sole parent.

On 10 May 1985, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 6-3b(2) (sole parent), with an honorable discharge (HD).  She had completed 6 years, 4 months and 7 days of active military service.  She also had 6 days of inactive service.  She had no recorded lost time or indisciplines.  She was assigned a code of RE-3 and RE-3C. 

The applicant served in the Army National Guard (ARNG) from 29 June 1988 through 31 May 1995.  She was separated with an HD and a code of RE-1.  However, this code is only for reenlistment purposes in the ARNG.

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.  RE-3C applies to personnel who do not meet reentry grade and service criteria.  However, the disqualification's may be waivable.  Local recruiting personnel have the responsibility for determining whether an individual meets the current enlistment criteria.  Recruiting personnel are required to process a request for waiver. 

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.  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.

2.  The applicant was separated from the RA and assigned RE codes of RE-3 and RE-3C in accordance with regulations then in effect.  These codes are still appropriate.

3.  The applicant should work with her local recruiting office to determine her eligibility to reenlist in the RA.

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

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12108/AR1999015103	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990429	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19850510	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	Sole Parent	
BOARD DECISION	(NC)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	Condition for separation no longer exists.	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.