MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           23 September 1999                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999026098

	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. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ernest M. Willcher		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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 reenlistment 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:  In effect, that she was not notified of this RE code which would affect her life.  She was a single parent.  She talked with her superior non-commissioned officer about working overtime on her full-time job and he told her he would take care of it.  Then when it came time for her to work those Saturdays she was told she had to drill with the unit.  She needed the money, so she chose to work instead of attending drill.  She knows now she should have found another unit instead of allowing this situation to make her seem like a bad soldier.  No supporting evidence is provided.

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

She enlisted in the Army National Guard on 14 April 1985.  

On 11 January 1989, the applicant signed a Statement of Understanding of Reserve Obligations and Responsibilities.  In it she acknowledged that she fully understood that if she was not excused from scheduled training periods by proper authority that she would be considered absent without leave and charged with an unexcused absence.  She also acknowledged that she understood that if she was charged with nine or more unexcused absences within a 1-year period, she would be declared an unsatisfactory participant and would be considered for separation from the Army National Guard.

Beginning about 1993, the applicant was sent several Letters of Instruction – Unexcused Absence by certified mail.  The evidence of record shows she personally signed for at least three of them.  These letters state in part “As you are aware, if you accumulate nine (9) unexcused absences (AWLs) within a one year period, you can be declared an unsatisfactory participant.  If this action is taken, you may be processed for transfer to the Inactive Ready Reserve (IRR) for the balance of your statutory obligation at which time you will be discharged, normally under other than honorable conditions.”

On 13 January 1994, the applicant was recommended for discharge from the Army National Guard as an unsatisfactory participant.

On 1 April 1994, the applicant was discharged from the Army National Guard, with a general under honorable conditions characterization of service.  She was transferred to the U. S. Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) to complete her contractual obligation.  She had completed 8 years, 11 months and 18 days of service for pay.  Her NGB Form 22 shows her RE code as 3.

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 U.S. 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.  

National Guard Regulation 600-200 establishes standards, policies and procedures for the management of Army National Guard enlisted soldiers in several areas, including discharge and reenlistment.  Paragraph 8-25 states that reenlistment codes are determined at discharge.  If the reason for discharge is waivable, the reenlistment code will be RE 3.  Paragraph 8-27 lists reasons for discharge not otherwise listed in paragraph 8-26.  Paragraph 8-27g discusses discharge for unsatisfactory participation and states that RE 3 will be given.

Recruiting personnel have the responsibility for initially determining whether an individual meets current enlistment criteria.  Since enlistment criteria does change, and since an individual has the right to apply for a waiver, the applicant should periodically visit his or her local recruiting station to determine if he or she should 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.  In view of the fact that the applicant was discharged from the Army National Guard for unsatisfactory participation, the assigned reenlistment eligibility code of RE-3 was and still is appropriate.  The applicant does not state if she is trying to reenlist in the Army National Guard, the U. S. Army Reserve or the Regular Army, but the disqualification is waivable for reenlistment in any component.

3.  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

__emw___  __mhm___  __bje___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999026098	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19990923	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.03	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.