MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:         

	BOARD DATE:           12 August 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999021679

	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. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. James M. Alward		Member	
	Ms. Meta Waller		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:  In effect, that the reason for his discharge be changed from an involuntary to voluntary discharge.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that after being alerted for overseas duty he and his wife were told one of them would have to apply for a parenthood discharge because they did not have another guardian for their son; that he elected to be the one discharged based on his expiration of term of service (ETS) date; that he was unaware at the time that the discharge was involuntary; and that he was unaware of the effects of an involuntary discharge in regard to his reentering service in the United States Army Reserve (USAR).

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

On 4 October 1986, while assigned to Fort Hood, Texas, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years.  At the time of his reenlistment he had completed 2 years, 10 months, and 27 days of honorable active service; attained the rank of specialist/E-4; and held military occupation specialty (MOS) 72E (Telecommunication Operator).  

The applicant’ s record also shows that during his entire tenure in service he had earned two Army Achievement Medals; the Army Good Conduct Medal; the Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Professional Development Ribbon/with numeral 2, denoting completion of the NCO Basic Course; and the Overseas Service Ribbon/with numeral 2, denoting completion of overseas tours in Germany and Korea.

During the period of enlistment under review the applicant completed the course requirements for and was awarded MOS 77F (Petroleum Supply Specialist), at Fort Lee, Virginia.  Upon completion of his training he was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas, where he earned promotion to the rank of sergeant/E-5 on
1 August 1989.  

The evidence of record shows that on 1 October 1990, the applicant ‘s unit commander determined that neither the applicant nor his wife had a completed family care plan which provided for the guardianship of their two month old child. The unit commander further commented that the applicant’s wife was deployable and based on that he was recommending that the applicant be discharged, under the provisions of Paragraph 5-8, AR 635-200, by reason of Parenthood.  

On 15 October 1990, the applicant completed a statement which indicated that his wife and he were both in a deployable status and that they had no one available to provide care for their two month old son.  The applicant further requested that he be separated in order to provide care for his son, and that he did not intend to try and reenter the service at a later date.  

On 16 October 1990, the applicant’s unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action, under the provisions of Paragraph 5-8, 
AR 635-200, with a recommendation for an honorable discharge.  The unit commander cited the applicant’s inability to fulfill his military obligations due to Parenthood, and specifically his failure to initiate a family care plan as the basis for taking the action.  The applicant consulted counsel and after being advised of the implications of the discharge, elected to waive his right to a board, waive personal appearance before a board, and he elected not to submit a statement of rebuttal in his own behalf.  

On 19 October 1990, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation and directed he receive an honorable discharge.  Accordingly, on 
29 October 1990, the applicant was discharged after completing 3 years and 
16 days of his current enlistment, and a total of 6 years, 11 months, and 13 days of active military service.  The applicant had been held 16 days beyond his normal ETS, this was authorized based on his being essential to National Security, under the provisions of Paragraph 6730 of Title 10 to the United States Code (10 USC 6730).

The evidence of record also includes a properly constituted DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), authenticated by the applicant, which documents the narrative reason for discharge as “Involuntary Separation Due to Parenthood”.  

AR 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive) for separation; the  reasons for separating soldiers from active duty; identifies if the separation action is voluntary or involuntary, and provides the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.  The SPD code of JDG was the appropriate code for the applicant based on the guidance provided in AR 635-5-1 for soldiers being discharged, under the provisions of Paragraph 5-8, AR 635-200, by reason of parenthood.  Additionally, Table 2-3 (SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table), AR 635-5 (Separation Documents) establishes RE Code 3 as the proper reentry code to assign to soldiers separated for this reason.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-8 provides the policy and procedure for the involuntary separation of soldiers due to parenthood.  Paragraph 5-8a provides, in pertinent part, that soldiers who’s parental obligations interfere with fulfillment of their military responsibilities will be considered for involuntary separation.  Army policy states that soldiers separated under these provisions will be awarded a character of service of honorable, under honorable conditions, or an uncharacterized description of service if in an entry level status.

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’s contention that he was unaware that his discharge was involuntary at the time of his separation is not corroborated by either the evidence of record or the independent evidence submitted by the applicant.  The record clearly shows that the applicant consulted counsel, and was advised of the implications of his discharge prior to the separation action being approved, and the DD Form 214, issued to and signed by the applicant at the time of his discharge, clearly identifies the discharge as involuntary.

2.  The Board noted that the applicant indicated he was unaware that his reentry eligibility (RE) code would impact his reentering the USAR.  However, the evidence of record shows he was properly assigned an RE code of 3 at the time of his separation, and there is no basis for removal of the RE code from his record.  The disqualification on which the code was based can be waived for reenlistment purposes.  If the applicant desires to enlist in the USAR he should contact a local recruiter to determine his eligibility.  Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes.  

3.  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 or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement. 

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

__rvo ___  __ja ____  ___mw __  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999021679	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	1999/08/DD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1990/10/29	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C5	
DISCHARGE REASON	A15.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.00	
2.  4	100.03	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.