MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            2 February 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999024625

	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. Robert J. McGowan		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		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 grade be adjusted from E-5 to E-6 and that his Primary Military Occupational Specialty (PMOS) be changed from 95C30, correctional specialist, to 95B30, military policeman.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that a former commander’s vendetta against him ruined his career and forced him to leave the Army in December 1995 as an E-6 with more than 10 years of service.  He adds that when he attempted to reenlist in July 1998, he was required to obtain a grade and MOS determination from Headquarters, Department of the Army, US Total Army Personnel Command (PERSCOM), Alexandria, Virginia.  After accepting PERSCOM’s determination, he enlisted only to be told by fellow soldiers that it didn’t make sense to bring him back as an E-5 when the Army was “critically short E-6 95Cs.”

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 2 years on 25 July 1984.  Trained as an infantryman, MOS 11C, he served 1 year and 10 months of creditable active Federal service before being honorably discharged in the grade of E-4 on 24 May 1986.

The applicant reenlisted for 3 years on 13 November 1986, reentering the Army as an E-4 for training as a military policeman, MOS 95B.  Upon completion of MOS 95B training, he served as a military policeman for approximately 30 months.  On 14 April 1989, he reenlisted for 4 years and retraining as a correctional specialist, MOS 95C.  He completed the Correction NCO Course at Fort McClellan, Alabama, on 30 June 1989 and received the MOS 95C.  Thereafter, he served in a variety of MOS 95C assignments.

In 1995, the applicant was serving in MOS 95C at the United States Disciplinary Barracks, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.  On 1 December 1995, he was honorably discharged as an E-6 under the provisions of paragraph 16-5, AR 635-200, because of a locally-imposed bar to reenlistment.  The applicant had been having marital problems which impaired his ability to serve.  His NCO Evaluation Report for the period 9504-9511 cited “off duty incidents of misconduct, drinking alcohol with under aged soldiers”, and “refusing to accept responsibility for his [actions], by blaming others for his behavior”.  He also received a series of negative counseling statements over a short period of time prior to his being barred from reenlisting.

On 30 September 1998, the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  As a part of the enlistment process, his request to reenlist was forwarded to PERSCOM for two reasons.  First, he required a waiver to reenlist because of the 1995 bar to reenlistment that prompted his separation on 1 December 1995.  Second, he required a grade and MOS determination.  The PERSCOM granted the waiver and, after determining that no vacancies existed in MOS 95B, offered the applicant the opportunity to reenlist as an E-5 in MOS 95C.  He accepted the PERSCOM grade and MOS determination and entered on active duty.

In the processing of this case, an advisory opinion was obtained from the CG (Commanding General), PERSCOM which states that the applicant underwent a grade and MOS determination which found him eligible for enlistment in grade 
E-5 and in MOS 95C; no vacancy existed in MOS 95B.  The applicant was so advised and accepted the grade and MOS offered.  He was also granted a waiver of his bar to reenlistment.  The opinion recommends that the applicant’s request be denied by the Board.  The advisory opinion was provided to the applicant for comment, but he did not choose to respond.

Army Regulation 601-210 prescribes eligibility criteria governing the enlistment of persons, with or without prior service (PS), into the Regular Army and the U.S. Army Reserve.  It provides, in pertinent part, that a enlistee who was previously separated as an E-6 with not more than 17 years Active Federal Service will have his or her enlistment grade and MOS eligibility determined by the CG, PERSCOM.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and advisory opinion(s), 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 applicant, as a result of marital problems in 1995, jeopardized his military career through a series of minor disciplinary violations and by exhibiting an unacceptable attitude for a non-commissioned officer.  He received a bar to reenlistment and elected to be discharged rather than try to overcome the bar.

3.  The applicant’s reentry into the Army some 3 years later required a waiver of his bar to reenlistment and a grade and MOS determination by the CG, PERSCOM.  The waiver was granted and the applicant’s grade and MOS were properly determined to be E-5 and MOS 95C based upon the needs of the Army. The applicant accepted the results of the grade and MOS determination and enlisted.

4.  There is no error or injustice in the applicant’s case and, thus, 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

__CMF__  __JEA__  __LE____  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
				     Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999024625	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000202	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	112.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.