MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            9 December 1998  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-12417

	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	
	Mr.	Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

	The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms.	June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr.	Fred N. Eichorn		Member	
	Mr.	Thomas B. Redfern, III		Member	

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	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, that his reentry (RE) code be changed to 3D or as an alternative, that the narrative reason for separation be removed from his report of separation (DD Form 214).

APPLICANT STATES:  That the most current regulation governing RE codes indicates that persons discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation     635-200, paragraph 16-5b, which was the basis for his discharge, will be assigned an RE code of 3D.  He goes on to state that RE code 3D is waivable and that persons who have a RE code of RE 4 may enlist in the USAR if the narrative reason for separation is not shown on the DD Form 214. 

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

The applicant enlisted on 18 March 1980 for a period of 3 years.  He remained on active duty as a cannoneer through a series of continuous reenlistments and was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 1 December 1986.

On 5 October 1987 the applicant’s commander initiated action to bar the applicant from reenlistment.  He cites as the basis for his recommendation, the applicant’s failure, after repeated counseling, to pay his debts, and to improve his duty performance, physical fitness, and personal hygiene.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  The appropriate authority approved the bar to reenlistment on 9 October 1987.

On 13 October 1987 the applicant submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5b, due to his perceived inability to overcome the bar to reenlistment.  The commander approved his request on 15 October 1987.

Accordingly, he was honorably discharged on 19 November 1987 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5b, due to a locally imposed bar to reenlistment.  He had served 7 years, 8 months, and 2 days of total active service and was issued a RE code of 4.

Army Regulation 601-210, in effect at the time, provided that persons who were separated with a nonwaivable disqualification such as a bar to reenlistment in effect at the time of separation  would be issued a RE code of 4.

The regulation currently in effect does not contain a RE code of 3D; however, regulations in effect between the time the applicant separated and the current regulation in effect, provided that persons who had a bar to reenlistment in effect at the time of discharge would be issued a RE code of 3D.  

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.  The applicant was properly discharged, per his request, in accordance with the applicable regulation in effect at the time and was issued the appropriate RE code.

2.  The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that the RE code issued to him at the time of his separation was in error or unjust.

3.  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

___jh____  ___fe___  __tbr____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director