MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           11 May 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999024295

	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.

	Mrs. Joyce A. Hughes		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. James M. Alward		Member	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		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:  Correction of appropriate military records to show a reentry eligibility (RE) code, which would allow reenlistment.  In effect, this constitutes a request for removal or waiver of those disqualifications, which preclude reenlistment.

APPLICANT STATES:  No contention submitted.

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

He was born on 15 May 1960.  He completed 12 years of formal education.  On 
9 August 1979, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years. His services thereafter were continuous through reenlistment and extensions.  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-4.

The applicant’s records show that on 13 July 1983, he was convicted by a special court-martial (SPCM) of three specifications of check fraud.  He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor (CHL) for 3 months and a reduction to pay grade E1.  On 25 July 1983, the unexecuted portion to CHL was remitted and the applicant was returned to military active duty status.

Between December 1986 and March 1987, the applicant was counseled on four different occasions for indebtedness and for repeatedly writing dishonored checks.

On 11 March 1987, the applicant’s commanding officer barred him from reenlistment.  The commander’s recommendation was based on the applicant’s SPCM, his previous counseling statements, his letters of indebtedness and his dishonored check notifications. 

On 20 March 1987, the applicant’s commander was notified that the applicant had written 29 dishonored checks totaling $2,934.60 and that these checks were written to the Army and Air Force Exchange Service in Europe.

On 15 April 1987, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  The commander’s recommendation was based on the applicant’s repeated writing of dishonored checks.  The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him.  The applicant acknowledged notification; he waived consideration, personal appearance and representation by counsel before a board of officers.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but declined to do so.

The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and medical examination, which found him, fit for retention.
On 19 May 1987, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of an Honorable Discharge Certificate.  On 15 July 1987,
the applicant was discharged under the provisions Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with an honorable discharge.  He completed 7 years, 10 months and 13 days of active service and 11 days of lost time.  He was given reentry codes of RE-3-3B-3C.

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 this chapter when, in the commander’s judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.
Army policy states that a general discharge, under honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but an honorable discharge may be granted in meritorious cases.

On 15 October 1999, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade in the character and/or reason for discharge.

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 lost time, local bars to reenlistment and those discharged under the provisions of chapter 9, 10. 11. 13 and 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 are assigned a RE-3.

RE-3B indicates that a person had lost time during his last enlistment and RE-3C applies to persons who have completed more than 4 months service who do not meet the basic eligibility pay grade requirements of chapter 2, Army Regulation 601-280, or who have been denied reenlistment under the Qualitative Retention Process according to chapter 10, Army Regulation 601-280.

Recruiting personnel have the responsibility for initially determining whether an individual meets current enlistment criteria.  They are required to process a request for waiver under the provisions of chapter 4 of Army Regulation 601-210 (RA and Army Reserve Enlistment Program).  Therefore, since enlistment criteria does change, and since the applicant have the right to apply for a waiver, it is suggested that periodic visits to the local recruiting station should be made to determine the eligibility and when to apply for a waiver.

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.  Army Regulation requires 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.  Evidence of record shows that the applicant was properly assigned RE codes of RE-3-3B-3C based on his reason for discharge and service record.   However, RE codes can be waived for the purpose of reenlistment.

3.  The Board is cognizant of the applicant’s record of service as a member of the Army National Guard and compliments him on his performance and progress.  However, his good post-service conduct does not warrant the relief requested.

4.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the assigned reentry eligibility codes were and still are appropriate.

5.  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___  __jma___  __cjp___  DENY APPLICATION

Carl W. S. Chun
Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024295	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000511	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.0300	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.