MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            22 April 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999021691

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright		Chairperson	
	Ms. Elizabeth Buchanon		Member	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		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 narrative reason for separation be changed to a more favorable reason and his Reentry (RE) code be changed to a more favorable code.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his reason for separation was unjust because none of the statements submitted by him at the time of his discharge were included in his defense.  He also states that he was falsely accused and his career ended without justification.  He further states that his current reentry code of RE “3” and “3C” prevents him from reenlisting.  In support of his application he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 and a copy of his change in characterization from the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB).

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

The applicant entered active duty 22 March 1984 as a light weapons infantryman.  

On 12 October 1984, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for violation of a lawful general regulation and for disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and 14 days restriction and extra duty.

The applicant underwent a mental evaluation on 8 November 1984, which determined that he could distinguish right from wrong and that he possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative or judicial proceedings.

The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 8 November 1984 and was found qualified for separation.

On 9 January 1985, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his rights to a hearing before a board of officers and representation by counsel and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The applicant was barred from reenlistment on 19 January 1985 for the aforementioned offense.

On 31 January 1985, the commander submitted his recommendation to separate the applicant under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He based his recommendation on the disciplinary action against the applicant and the applicant’s lack of potential to develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.

On 31 January 1985, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 5 February 1985.  He had a total of 10 months, and 14 days of creditable service.  His DD Form 214 shows that he as issued an RE code of RE “3 “and RE-“3C”.

The applicant applied to the ADRB on 21 July 1998 for a change in his narrative reason for separation.  The ADRB determined that the applicant’s discharge was inequitable because the applicant’s quality of service did not warrant the granting of a general discharge, under honorable conditions.  The ADRB noted that there was a full consideration of all service including the infractions of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of the offenses.  The ADRB also noted that the applicant’s generally acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty outweighed the discrediting entries in the applicant’s service record.  On 19 September 1998 the ADRB voted to grant relief in the form of an upgrade of characterization of service to honorable, but voted not to change the narrative reason for discharge.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of this regulation, in effect at the time, provides for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when in the commander’s judgment the individual will not become a satisfactory soldier; retention will have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order and morale; the service member will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation will continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely.  Service of soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

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.

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

RE-3C applies to persons who have completed over 4 months of service who do not meet the basic eligibility pay grade requirements of AR 601-280, chapter 2, or who have been denied reenlistment under the Qualitative Retention Process under AR 600-200, chapter 4.  

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 administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  Notwithstanding the decision by the ADRB to change the characterization of service to honorable, the Board finds no evidence to show that his discharge at the time was improper or that his narrative reason was inequitable. 

4.  The applicant was separated and assigned a reentry code in accordance with regulations then in effect.  The applicant has failed to show, through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record that the RE code issued to him was incorrect.

5.  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.

6.  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

INW________  EB________  TAP________  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999021691	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990422	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19850205	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.110		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.