APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge and that the narrative reason for his discharge be changed.

APPLICANT STATES:  That, because of his dedicated service in the Army for  10 years, he feels he should be given the benefit of the doubt and allowed the opportunity to regain his dignity as a non-commissioned officer.  He would like a chance to go on Reserve status to finish up his last 10 years.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 March 1979 and had continuous service until his discharge.

On 17 January 1987, the applicant received a letter of reprimand for his involvement in questionable conduct with female soldiers who were subordinate to him.

On 2 February 1989, the applicant was arrested by civil authorities for six counts of issuing worthless checks.

On 1 March 1989, the applicant received a bar to reenlistment for dishonored checks, failure to report to physical training formation four times, failure to achieve course standards at the Basic Non-Commissioned Officer Course (BNCOC) and subsequently failing to enroll in remedial training.  He did not appeal the bar.

On 25 April 1989, the applicant completed a mental status evaluation and was psychologically cleared for administrative actions as deemed appropriate by his command.

On 27 April 1989, the commander initiated separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct, citing the applicant’s positive urinalysis for cocaine, bad checks, misappropriation of government property and numerous failures to repair.

On 28 April 1989, the applicant acknowledged the separation action.  He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived personal appearance before such a board, waived representation by counsel before such a board and did not submit any statement in his own behalf.

On 28 April 1989, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation and directed the applicant receive a general discharge.

On 9 May 1989, the applicant was discharged with a general discharge, in pay grade of E-6, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14 for misconduct.  He was given a reenlistment (RE) code of 3.  He had completed   10 years, 1 month and 27 days of creditable active service and had 5 days of lost time.  His awards and decorations included the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Achievement Medal and the Army Good Conduct Medal (3d Award).

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.

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 U.S. 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 waiverable.  

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.  Since enlistment criteria does change, and since an individual has the right to apply for a waiver, the applicant should periodically visit his local recruiting station to determine if he should apply for a waiver.

On 28 August 1998, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded 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.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations.  He had the right to a hearing of his case by a board of officers and waived that right.  Considering the circumstances of this case, “misconduct” was and still is the appropriate narrative reason for his separation.

3.  The assigned reenlistment code of 3 was and still is appropriate.  The applicant was disqualified from reenlistment, but the disqualification is waiverable.

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