MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           25 August 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999023836

	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	
	Mrs. Judy L. Blanchard-Miller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		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 his discharge under other than conditions (UOTHC) be upgraded to an honorable discharge; that the character of service be changed to read for the convenience of the government; that he would like his reenlistment code changed to RE-1; and that the corresponding separation program designator code(SPD) code be changed.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was very young and did not make good choices; that his dad killed his mother when he was only 11 years old and that he just does not feel that he had good direction before he went into the military.  He further states that he quit school in the 9th grade. 

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

On 4 June 1971, at the age of 17, with guardian consent, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 2 years.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 36K10 (Tactical Wire Operation Specialist).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-3.

On 27 July 1971, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 19 to 24 July 1971.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $31 pay, 10 days restriction and extra duty.   

On 28 July 1972, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 24 May to 21 June 1972.  He was sentenced to a forfeiture of $100 pay per month for 3 months and a reduction to pay grade E-1.  

Between August and September 1972, the applicant accepted two nonjudicial punishments under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for leaving his appointed place of duty without proper authority and for disobeying a lawful order.  His punishment included forfeitures, restrictions and extra duties.

A mental and a physical status evaluation found the applicant qualified for separation.  He was considered mentally and physically competent to participate `in board proceedings. 

On 2 May 1973, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unfitness.  The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him, he waived consideration, personal appearance, and representation before a board of officers.

On 10 May 1973, the commanding general approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a discharge UOTHC.  On 18 May 1973, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 13 for unfitness with a discharge UOTHC.  He had completed 
1 year, 8 months and 11 days of creditable active service.  He was given a reentry code of RE-3B.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently this chapter when, in the commander's to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier. 

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-3B applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, who have lost time during their last period of service, but the disqualification is waivable.

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.  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.

2.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.  Prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals are assigned RE codes.  The assigned, RE code and SPD was based on the service records or the reason for discharge.  The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of service determined at the time of discharge was not consistent with the Army’s standards for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.

3.  Therefore, there is no basis for changing the RE code and the SPD code.  The disqualification upon which the RE code was based, however, can be waived for reenlistment purposes. 

4.  While the Board has taken cognizance of the applicant's age and his childhood problems; none of these factors, either individually or in sum, warrant the relief requested.  

5.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the assigned RE code and SPD codes were and still are appropriate. 

6.  Therefore in view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s requests.

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

__lls___  ___le___  ___alr__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999023836	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990825	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19730518	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200-chapter13 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A49.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.49.00	
2.	110.00	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.