PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:           21 April 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12514
                                              AR1998014470

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. Michael L. Engle		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. Gary F. Geraets		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
            	       records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	                 advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that his reentry (RE) code be changed from RE-3 to RE-1.  On 18 January 1999 the applicant submitted a letter requesting that his original request be modified to show he desired immediate reinstatement into the Army, in the rank of staff sergeant (E-6), with no loss of pay or time in grade, and to be assigned to the Republic of Germany for duty.

3.  The applicant states that the RE-3 code was based upon an erroneous declination of continued service statement (DCSS).  He further contends that after an inspector general (IG) investigation, this DCSS was determined to be invalid.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Army on 29 November 1988 for 5 years.  He completed his initial training and served in a series of assignments both in the United States and overseas.  He reenlisted for another 4 years on 3 December 1992, establishing the expiration of his term of service as 2 December 1996.  He attained the rank of staff sergeant (E-6) on     1 February 1995.

5.  On 27 June 1995 the applicant voluntarily extended his enlistment contract for 17 months for the purpose of attending drill instructor school.  On 11 December 1995 the applicant’s selection to attend drill instructor school was cancelled.  On 18 December 1995 the applicant requested that his voluntary extension of his enlistment contract be cancelled.  The appropriate authority approved his request on 26 February 1996.

6.  Sometime between 12 December 1995 and 8 March 1996, the applicant was again placed on assignment to drill instructor school.  Upon arrival at the school, he was identified as an unqualified arrival due to not having 2 years remaining on his present enlistment after graduation.

7.  On 8 March 1996 the applicant was counseled that he did not have sufficient time remaining in service to fulfill drill instructor status and that because he refused to reenlist or extend to meet this service remaining obligation he was required to sign a DCSS.  The applicant acknowledged that he understood and elected not to make a statement.  On 1 April 1996 a DCSS was processed, without the applicant’s signature, based upon the applicant’s failure to extend his ETS to fulfill a service remaining obligation.

8.  On 10 June 1996 the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5, indicating that a bar to reenlistment was attached to the recommendation.  (Note:  The document referred to as a bar to reenlistment was actually the unsigned DCSS mentioned above, which did not contain the applicant’s signature).  The requested date of discharge was 15 August 1996.

9.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed he be issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate.  Accordingly, he was honorably discharged on 15 August 1996 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5c by reason of non-retention on active duty, with a separation code of KGH and RE code 3.  He completed 7 years, 8 months and 17 days of creditable active service.

10.  In the processing of this case, the staff of the Board discussed the issue of the DCSS with the IG Office, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.  A representative from that office referred to their case file concerning the applicant and read the following:  “The case revealed that his branch had mishandled his assignment to drill instructor school and, therefore, his DCSS was terminated.  However, upon his separation, his DD Form 214 contained an RE-3 code as submitted by the local personnel office.  The IG Office, United States Total Army Personnel Command researched the situation and determined that the DCSS was not instituted, therefore, it should not have been entered on the DD Form 214.”

11.  The staff of the Board notified the applicant by letter on 30 December 1998 of the above-mentioned discussion with the IG Office, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.  As of this date no response has been received from the applicant.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 16 of that regulation provides for selected changes in service obligations.  Paragraph 16-5c provides that soldiers who decline to meet service remaining requirements and who have signed a DCSS may request immediate separation.

13.  Army Regulation 601-210 prescribes eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the 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.

14.  RE-3 applies to persons who do not meet basic reentry criteria at time of separation.  The disqualification is waivable. 

15.  Army Regulation 601-280 prescribes the criteria for the Total Army Retention Program.  For those soldiers serving in the Active Army, it outlines procedures for immediate reenlistment or extension of enlistment.  Paragraph   3-9a provides, in pertinent part, that soldiers who have a DCSS in effect are not eligible for immediate reenlistment and may not submit a request for waiver for the disqualification.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant originally extended his enlistment for the purpose of attending drill instructor school, but that after being cancelled for training, he withdrew this extension of service.

2.  When the applicant was again given the opportunity to attend this school, he reported for training but then refused for unknown reasons to reenlist in order to meet the service remaining obligation.

3.  Upon returning to his unit, he was improperly required to sign a DCSS.  He should have been counseled prior to leaving for the school and given 30 days to decide.  However, it is evident that the timing of his class selection did not permit the applicant to have 30 days to make a decision.

4.  The career branch mishandled his assignment and the IG determined that the DCSS should not have been instituted after the fact.  Therefore, the Board feels that the applicant’s narrative reason for separation is inappropriate.

5.  The applicant’s contention that he should be immediately reinstated with no loss of service time or rank is not fully supported by the evidence of record.  The applicant had ample opportunity to reenlist and attend drill sergeant school.  Instead, he voluntarily refused to reenlist or extend to meet the 2 year service obligation after completion of training.

6.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected by changing the reason and authority for his separation to Secretarial Authority with a corresponding separation code and by changing his RE code to RE-1.    

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case, particularly the DD Form 214 of the individual concerned, be corrected by showing he was discharged by reason of Secretarial authority with a corresponding separation code and an RE code 1.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

___cmf__  ___sk___  ___gfg__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		___Calvin M. Folwer___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-12514	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990421	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT 	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.03	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.