MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:            19 May 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999023045

	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:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Robert G. Hinkle 		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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 general discharge be upgraded to honorable, his narrative reason for separation be changed to convenience of the government, and that his Reentry ((RE) Code 3 be change to RE-1.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he has become an outstanding citizen since his discharge and that he was young and immature which impaired his ability to serve.  He also states that he request a second chance to prove himself. 

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

The applicant entered active duty on 20 August 1991 and served as a light weapons infantryman.

In February 1992, the applicant began receiving numerous counseling statements for instances of failure to follow instructions, for being disrespectful toward a noncommissioned officer and uttering bad checks.

On 25 August 1992, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for uttering bad checks and making a false official statement.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-2, a forfeiture of pay and 14 days restriction and extra duty.

The applicant was barred from reenlistment on 4 January 1993 for the aforementioned offenses. 

The applicant underwent a mental evaluation on 7 January 1993, 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 7 January 1993 and was found qualified for separation.

On 8 February 1993, 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.

On 9 February 1993, 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, uttering bad checks, making a false official statement and numerous derogatory counseling statements.

On 9 February 1993, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 19 February 1993.  He had a total of 1 year and 6 months of creditable service.  His DD Form 214 shows that he as issued a RE code of RE “3 “.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 25 September 1993 for an upgrade of his discharge.  However, the ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and equitable and denied his request on 9 January 1997.

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 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 Board noted the applicant’s contentions that he has become an outstanding citizen since his discharge and that he was young and immature which impaired his ability to serve; however, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support his contentions.

2.  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.

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

4.  At the time of his separation, the applicant was 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 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

JNS_____  RGH____  RWA____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999023045	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990520	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19930219	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 110		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.