PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:.

	BOARD DATE:                              
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AC98-11052

	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. Joseph A. Adriance.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. 		Chairperson	
	Mr. 		Member	
	Mr. 		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, in effect, that his reentry (RE) code be changed. 

3.  The applicant states, in effect, the he was issued an RE code of 3 based on a bar to reenlistment that should have been lifted a month prior to his separation.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that on 10 June 1993 he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years at the age of 34.  He attained the rank of specialist/E-4 and earned the Army Achievement Medal; the Good Conduct Medal; the National Defense Service Medal; and the Army Service Ribbon.  

5.  Disciplinary records are not available and the bar to reenlistment action imposed on the applicant is also not available in the record.  However, the applicant did provide a second endorsement, subject: review to bar to reenlistment, dated 6 May 1997, from his Battalion Commander addressed  to the Director of Military Personnel at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.  The endorsement contains the battalion commander’s concurrence with the recommendation of the applicant’s unit commander recommending that the bar to reenlistment on the applicant be removed.  

6.  The applicant’s record contains a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty) which documents that he was released from active duty on 9 June 1997 by reason of expiration of term of service (ETS) with an honorable characterization of service.  The DD Form 214 also shows the separation program designator (SPD) code of LBK which signifies normal ETS and an RE code of 3.

7.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) contains the policy for standardization of certain entries on the DD Form 214.  It further defines the SPD codes to be used and the authorities and reasons for their use and control.  This regulation directs that the SPD Code of MBK be used for soldiers who are eligible to reenlist and released from active duty on completion of enlistment and transferred to the Reserve components to complete their military service obligation; SPD code LBK is directed for soldiers ineligible for reenlistment separated on completing their term of service who have been barred from reenlistment. 

8.  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.
9.  RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is subject to waiver.  It also applies to certain persons who were discharged with a field bar from reenlistment, and those discharged under the provisions of chapters 9, 10, 13, and 14 of Army Regulation 635-200.  Specific facts and circumstances pertaining to why the applicant was assigned an RE code of 3 are not available in the applicant’s record; however, based on regulatory guidance, given the applicant was discharged at normal ETS the RE code of 3 would have had to have been based on a locally imposed bar to reenlistment.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board found sufficient reason to conclude that the applicant’s locally imposed bar to reenlistment should have been removed prior to his release from active duty.  Therefore, the applicant should not have been issued an RE code of 

2.  The SPD code of LBK, contained in Block 27 of the applicant’s DD Form 214 is incorrect given the Board determination outlined in paragraph 1 of these conclusions.

3.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by assigning the individual concerned the RE code of 1, an SPD code of MBK, and issuing a corrected DD Form 214.

BOARD VOTE:  

________  ________  ________  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON