PROCEEDINGS

            IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            25 February 1999 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999017398

	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	
	Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James M. Alward		Chairperson	
	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Member	
	Mr. Samuel Calderon		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 her reentry (RE) code be changed from RE-4 to RE-2 or a more favorable one.

3.  The applicant states that she received an erroneous RE code because her record shows no disciplinary actions that would warrant such a code.  She also contends that a discharge due to parenthood warrants a RE code of RE-2.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that she enlisted on 14 February 1984, served as a multichannel communications equipment operator and was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 16, due to reduction in authorized strength on 10 February 1987.

5.  The applicant reenlisted on 30 November 1988 for a period of 4 years and training in her former military occupational specialty.  She served 32 months in Germany and was advanced to the pay grade of E-5 on 1 March 1991.    

6.  On 25 November 1992 the applicant’s commander notified her that he was initiating action to separate her from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, for involuntary separation due to parenthood.  He based his recommendation for separation on the applicant’s failure to provide an adequate family care plan for her dependent upon reassignment or deployment.  After consulting with counsel, she waived a personal appearance before an administrative separation board and elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.

7.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation on 14 December 1992.  He also directed that she be issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate and that she be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve for completion of her statutory obligation and/or utilization in the event of full mobilization.

8.  Accordingly, she was honorably discharged on 23 December 1992 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-8, for involuntary separation due to parenthood.  She had served 7 years and 21 days of total active service and was issued a RE code of RE-4.
  
9.  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 processing into the Regular Army and the USAR.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes.

10.  RE-1 applies to persons completing an initial term of active service who were fully qualified when last separated.  

11.  RE-2 applies to persons separated before completing a contracted period of service whose reenlistment is not contemplated.

12.  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 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 16 of Army Regulation 635-200.

13.  RE-4 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service by virtue of being separated from the service with a nonwaivable disqualification.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize her rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

2.  However, at the time of her separation from the service she was incorrectly issued an RE code of RE-4.  Therefore, it would be appropriate at this time to correct her records to show that her RE code should be RE-3. 

3.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records, but only as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual concerned was honorably discharged on 23 December 1992 and was issued a RE code of RE-3, vice the RE code of
RE-4 she currently holds.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

___ja  ___  ___jlp___  ___sc___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____James M. Alward____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999017398	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/02/25	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	 	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	 	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT PARTIAL	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  100.030		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.