MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            25 March 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999022675

	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. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr. 		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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 Reentry (RE) Code 3 be changed to RE-1.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his current RE code prevents him from reentering the US Army.

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

The applicant initially enlisted in the United States Marine Corps on 26 October 1992 as a basic marine and was separated with an uncharacterized discharge on 8 February 1993.  

After a break in service, he enlisted in the US Army on 23 July 1995 as a cannon crewman.

Beginning in July 1996, the applicant began receiving numerous counseling statements for failure to be at his appointed place of duty, missing formation and for forgery.

The applicant underwent a mental evaluation on 28 August 1996 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 28 August 1996 and was found qualified for separation with a 111111 physical profile.

The applicant was barred from reenlistment on 26 September 1996 for the aforementioned counseling statements.

On 13 November 1996, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct.  He based his recommendation on the applicant’s minor disciplinary infractions.

After consulting with counsel, he waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and representation by counsel and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  On the same day the commander submitted his recommendation to separate the applicant under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct.

On 15 January 1997, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 6 February 1997.  He had a total of 1 year, 
9 months, and 27 days of creditable service and was issued an RE code of
RE “3”.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 30 April 1997.  The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and equitable, and denied his request on 14 November 1997.

Army regulation 635-200 sets for the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, patterns of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter.  

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 nor 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-1 applies to persons completing their term of service who are considered qualified to reenter the US Army.

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 therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant was separated and assigned a reentry code in accordance with regulations then in effect.
4.  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

MKP____  EJA_____  LE______  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999022675	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990325	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19970206	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	110	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.