MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:        

	BOARD DATE:            22 July 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999019827

	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	
	Ms. Maria C. Sanchez		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas N. Kuhn		Member	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member	

	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:  That his separation and reentry (RE) code on his report of separation (DD Form 214) be corrected to show a more favorable reason for separation and a better RE code.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his discharge occurred during a draw down in Germany.  He honorably completed three years of his four-year tour.  The separation and RE codes he received do not fit the conditions of his separation from the service.  He enlisted in the Tennessee National Guard and anticipates returning to the service under the Chaplain’s Program.  He feels that the incorrect and unjust separation and RE codes if left in place will hurt his chances of serving as a chaplain.

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

The applicant enlisted on 7 November 1990 for a period of 4 years and trained as a signal intelligence analyst.

On 19 July 1993, while serving in the pay grade of E-4 in Germany, the applicant submitted a request for early separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-3.  His scheduled ETS at that time was 
6 November 1994.

Accordingly, the applicant was honorably discharged on 13 December 1993 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-3, under Secretarial Authority.  He had served 3 years, 1 month and 7 days of total active service and was issued a RE code of RE-3.

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.

RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, or who did not complete the term of  their enlistment, 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.

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 in accordance with applicable regulations with no indication of any of the applicant’s rights.

2.  The separation authority, separation code, RE code, and narrative reason for separation used in the applicant’s case are correct and were applied in accordance with the applicable regulations.

3.  The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that the narrative reason for separation and RE code issued to him was in error or unjust.

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

__cmf ___  __tk ____  __rjw ___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999019827	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/07/22	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1993/12/13	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, para 5-3	
DISCHARGE REASON	Secretarial authority	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  4	100.0300/Re code	
2.  191	110.0200/reason & authority	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.