MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            3 February 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999025509

	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.

	Ms. Antoinette Farley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		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:  That his reenlistment code is incorrect.  He further states that he lost his original copy and just now received a new one, but he feels it is wrong.  He provides no supporting information.

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

He had prior Army National Guard service from 8 December 1983 to 
29 May 1984, and he received training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 67N10 (Utility Helicopter Repairer).

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 21 May 1986 with the rank of private first class grade E-3, and received training in MOS 31K00 (Combat Signaler).  

Shortly after reporting to Fort Gordon, Georgia, the applicant experienced problems in achieving passing scores in his academic training.  He was counseled on several occasions for his lack of discipline and unmilitary attitude.

On 6 August 1986, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200, essentially by reason of academic failure.  The commander cited the applicant’s lack of aptitude, ability, motivation and self-discipline for the discharge action.  The applicant waived legal counsel and he stated that he did not wish to make a statement in his own behalf.

On 12 August 1986, the separation authority approved the separation recommendation and directed that the applicant be separated in an entry-level status for academic failure.  In addition, the applicant would be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR).

On 15 August 1986, the applicant was released from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation AR 635-200, chapter 11, by reason of entry-level status performance and conduct, with an uncharacterized discharge.  He was transferred to the US Army Reserve Personnel and Administration Center to complete his service obligation.  He had completed 2 months and 25 days of creditable active service during the enlistment under review.  He was assigned an RE Code of RE-3.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 11, of this regulation, in effect at the time, provided, for the separation of personnel due to unsatisfactory performance, conduct, or both, while in an entry level status.  This provision of regulation applied to individuals who had demonstrated that they were not qualified for retention because they could not adapt socially or emotionally to military life, or because they lacked the aptitude, ability, motivation or self discipline for military service, or that they had demonstrated characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service.  The separation policy also applies to soldiers who cannot meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation or self-discipline.  The regulation states that a soldier is in an entry-level status if the soldier has not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty prior to the initiation of separation action.  The soldier’s service is uncharacterized when separated 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 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 chapters 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 are assigned an RE-3.

There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), within that board’s 15-year statute of limitation.

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 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 the facts of the case.

4.  There appears to be no basis for removal or waiver of the disqualification, which established the basis for the RE code.

5.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the assigned RE eligibility code was and still is appropriate. 

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_  ___BJE__  ___EWL_  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999025509	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000203	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UNCHAR	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19860812	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 CH 11	
DISCHARGE REASON	A29.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Director	
ISSUES         1.	78.00	
2.	100.03	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.