MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           9 December 1998                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12508

	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. Judy L. Blanchard		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Member	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III		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:  Correction of appropriate military records to show a reentry eligibility (RE) code, which would allow reenlistment.  In effect, this constitutes a request for removal or waiver of those disqualification’s which preclude reenlistment.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was discharged under honorable conditions, not dishonorable conditions.  He believes that his (RE) code is in error.  He would like his reentry code changed so that he could reenter into the Army. 

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

On 4 March 1987, the applicant enlisted into the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 94B10 (Food Service Specialist).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-2. 

On 24 August 1987, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being disrespectful in language toward a commissioned officer.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-1 (suspended). 

On 22 September 1987, the applicant accepted an NJP, under Article, UCMJ, for two occasions of failure to repair.  His imposed punishment was 7 days restriction.

On 1 December 1987, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  The commander’s recommendation was based on the applicant’s unsatisfactory duty performance and action, which indicates that he could not be rehabilitated for productive military service.  The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him, he waived consideration, personal appearance, and representation before a board of officers.

On 16 December 1987, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a general discharge.  On 7 January 1988, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-2, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13 (unsatisfactory performance) with a general discharge.  He had completed 10 months and 4 days of creditable active service. He was given a reentry code of RE-3 and RE-3C.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently this chapter when, in the commander's to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier. 

Recruiting personnel have the responsibility for initially determining whether an individual meets current enlistment criteria.  They are required to process a request for waiver under the provisions of chapter 4, Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program).  Therefore, since enlistment criteria does change, and since you have the right to apply for a waiver, it is suggested that you periodically visit your local recruiting station to determine if you should apply for a waiver.

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, but the disqualification is waivable.  Certain persons who have received nonjudicial punishment are so disqualified, as are persons with bars to reenlistment, and those discharged under the provisions of chapters 9, 10, 13, and 14 of Army Regulation 635-200.

RE-3C applies to persons who have completed more than 4 months service who do not meet the basic eligibility pay grade requirements.

On 20 March 1992, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

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’s discharge and assigned RE code was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations then in effect, with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to significantly jeopardize his rights..
3.  There is no basis for removal of the RE code from the applicant's record.  The disqualification upon which the code was based, however, can be waived for reenlistment purposes. 

4.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the assigned RE code was and still is appropriate. 

5.  Therefore in view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s requests.

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______  FNE_____  TBR_____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12508	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19981209	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	880107	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chapter 13 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A26.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	133.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.