MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           13 July 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999026827

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mrs. Joyce A. Hughes		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Jennifer L. Prater		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		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, 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:  In effect, that the day of his discharge he was not overweight.  He further states that he was kept on the weight program for 
24 months because of prejudice of his commander he also states that he lost 
the weight within six months and the RE 3C that he was given at the time of his separation denotes that he did not make E-5 within 8 years, his separation document shows that he was a E-4 for 6 years.

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

The applicant initially enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 June 1980, he weighed
209 pounds.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 12C10 Bridge Crewman.  He was promoted to E-4 on 1 September 1982.  His services were continuous through extensions and reenlistments.

On 8 April 1982, the applicant reported to sick call, his medical record showed that he was 14 pounds overweight.  However the particulars pertaining to his weight gain are missing from his records.

On 9 January 1985, the applicant’s records were flagged for failing to meet the Army’s weight standards, at that time he weighed 222 pounds.  He was then placed in the Army’s Weight Control Program.  His authorized weight was set at 
205 pounds.

Between February through March 1985, the applicant was counseled concerning his weight, at that time he had a 10 pound weight loss.

In September and October 1985, the applicant was again counseled he was 
5 pounds overweight.  In November 1985, the applicant’s weight was 211 pounds and his body fat was 24 percent.

In April 1986, the applicant’s weight was 227 pounds and his body fat was
22.8 percent.  Six months later his weight was 232 pounds and his body fat was 31.32 percent.

The Commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, for failure to meet the Army’s weight control standards.

On 6 November 1986, a mental status evaluation and physical examination cleared the applicant for separation.

On 21 November 1986, the applicant acknowledged receipt of notification and waived consultation with legal counsel.  He waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 25 November 1986, the proper authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of an honorable discharge.

On 18 December 1986, the applicant was honorably discharged in pay grade
E-4, under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5 (failure to meet body fat standards).  He had completed 6 years, 5 months and 25 days of creditable active service.  He was given a reentry code of RE-3-3C. 

Army Regulation 600-9 establishes policies and procedures for the implementation of the Army Weight Control Program.  Each soldier is responsible for meeting the standards prescribed in the regulation.  Commanders and supervisors will implement the Army Weight Control Program, to include evaluation of the weight and military appearance of all soldiers under their jurisdiction, to include measuring body fat as prescribed in this regulation.  Overweight is defined as when a soldier’s percent of body fat exceeds the standard specified in the regulation.  Body fat composition will be determined for personnel whose body weight exceeds the screening table weight.  A soldier will be flagged and enrollment in a weight control program starts on the day the soldier is informed by the unit commander that he has been entered in a weight control program.  A medical evaluation will be accomplished when requested by the unit commander or when the soldier is being considered for separation due to failure to make satisfactory progress in a weight control program.  The required weight loss goal of 3 to 8 pounds per month is considered a safely attainable goal to enable soldiers to lose excess body fat and meet the body fat standards.  

Army Regulation 600-9 also provides that commanders will remove soldiers from a weight control program as soon as the body fat standard is achieved and removal of the flagging action will be accomplished at that time.  If a soldier exceeds the screening table weight and the body fat standard within 12 months from the date of the previous removal from the program and no medical reason is found as the cause of the condition, the individual will be subject to separation.  (Also if they do not meet the standards after the 12th month but within 36 months under the same condition.)  The commander will inform the soldier in writing that initiation of separation proceedings is being considered.  The soldier will immediately respond to the letter in writing.  The commander will consider the response and initiate separation action if no adequate explanation is provided.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 5 provides that soldiers who fail to meet the body fat standards set forth in Army Regulation 600-9 are subject to separation when such condition is the sole basis for separation.  Separation action may not be initiated until the solider has been given a reasonable opportunity to comply with and meet the body fat standards.  The commander will notify the soldier in writing that his separation has been recommended.  The soldier will be advised of the right to consult with counsel, to submit statements in his own behalf, to obtain copies of documents that support the proposed separation, and to a hearing before an administrative separation board if he has 6 or more years of total service.  A soldier will be notified in writing of the convening date of the board at least 15 days before the hearing.  The board will determine whether the allegation is supported by a preponderance of the evidence and will make a recommendation as to whether the soldier should be retained, separated, or separated but the separation suspended.  A recommendation as to suspension is not binding on the separation authority.  When a case has been referred to and action completed by the board, the board proceedings will be reviewed by a qualified officer fully cognizant of applicable regulations and policies to determine whether the action meets the requirements of this regulation.  The separation authority may approve the recommendation of the board or direct a more favorable outcome.  When the separation authority suspends an approved separation and the soldier fails to meet the appropriate standards of conduct and duty performance, the separation authority may advise the soldier in writing that vacation action is being considered and the reasons that warrant such consideration.  The soldier will be given 3 duty days to consult with counsel and submit a written statement in his behalf.  The commander taking the action will consider any information the soldier submits and may either vacate the suspension and execute the separation or continue to suspend the execution of the approved separation for the remainder of the probation period.

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 discharge under the provisions of chapter 9, 10. 11. 13 and 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 are assigned a RE-3.

RE-3C applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, due to grade
and service requirements.  In this case the applicant did not meet the Army’s 
weight standards.

On 17 February 1988, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for a change in the character and/or reason for discharge. 

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 this requirement.

2.  The evidence of record does not support the applicant’s allegations.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant lost weight, however, he also regained the lost weight.  The applicant’s record also shows that 2 months before being discharge he weighed 232 pounds and his body fat was 31.31 percent.  Although at the time of discharge he weighed 228 pounds.

3.  There is no evidence of the applicant being treated unfairly.  The applicant has not submitted any evidence to the Board corroborating his allegation that he was treated unfairly or that his separation was based on unfair treatment.

4.  The applicant was discharged and assigned a reentry code in accordance
with the regulation then effect.

5.  There is no basis for removal of the RE codes for the applicant’s record.  The
disqualification upon which the code was based, however, can be waived for 
reenlistment purposes.

6.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the assigned reentry eligibility code was and still is appropriate; therefore, 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

__JLP___  __MHM___  __JEA___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999026827	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000713	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.0300	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.