PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:  27 January 2000                             
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999026889

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that her general discharge (GD) be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge and that her reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be changed to an RE code that will allow reenlistment. 

3.	The applicant states that she does not feel that the circumstances for which 
she was discharged warranted either the type of discharge that she received, nor the RE code that she received.  Additionally, she states that the appeals process was not adequately explained to her in regards to her discharge.

4.	The applicant’s military records show that she served honorably in the 
Regular Army (RA) from 18 January 1989-16 September 1992.  She was advanced to pay grade 4 on 1 April 1991.  On 17 September 1992, she reenlisted in the RA for 4 years in military occupational specialty (MOS) 
73C (Finance Specialist).  She had no record of indisciplines or lost time during her first enlistment.

5.  Her awards consist of the Army Achievement Medal, the Good Conduct Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon, and the Army Lapel Button.

6.	On 15 March 1993, the applicant was assigned to Japan.  Between April 
1993 and December 1993, she was continuously counseled concerning delinquent debt, her personal finances and writing worthless checks to various institutions.  She was also counseled for her poor attitude, for failure to follow directions, for illegal parking violations, for being disrespectful towards a noncommissioned officer, for failure to be at her appointed place of duty at the prescribed time, for insubordinate conduct, for failure to follow instructions or directions.

7.  On 4 May 1993, the applicant received a letter of reprimand (LOR) for being disrespectful to a noncommissioned officer.  

8.  On 28 September 1993, the applicant’s Army Air Force Exchange Services (AAFES) check cashing privileges were suspended for 6 months.  She continued to receive counseling as a result of her spouses dishonored checks, for receiving letters of indebtedness and for having delinquent debts.

9.  On 27 October 1993, a bar to reenlistment against the applicant was approved.  She was advised of her rights to appeal.  She did not appeal.

10.	  On 12 November 1993, the applicant was removed from the units
Pay Grade E-5/Sergeant’s Standing Promotion List as a result of the bar to reenlistment.

11.	  On 7 January 1994, the commander notified the applicant that she was 
being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, paragraph 14, for misconduct-pattern of misconduct with a GD.  The commander cited the bar to reenlistment, indebtedness, and the dishonored checks as the basis for the recommendation.  

12.	  On 11 January 1994, the applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis 
for the contemplated action and its effects and the rights available to her.  She was not entitled to consideration or personal appearance by a board of officers. She requested retention in a statement submitted in her own behalf. 

13.	  On 26 January 1994, the Deputy Staff Judge Advocate determined that the 
separation action was legally sufficient.  On 29 January 1994, competent authority waived further rehabilitative efforts, approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a GD, for misconduct, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14.

14.	  On 23 February 1994, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of 
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b with a GD.  (Note: Her DD Form 214 shows the separation authority is AR 635-200, paragraph 12-12b.  On 
2 June 1999, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) requested that the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA), Support Division, St Louis, issue her a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) showing the correct separation authority is AR 635-200, paragraph 14-12b).  She had completed 3 years, 
7 months and 29 days of prior active military service and she had completed
1 year, 5 months and 6 days on the enlistment under review.  She received an RE code of RE-3.

15.  Evidence of record indicates that on 2 June 1999, the ADRB denied the applicant's request for upgrade of her discharge.

16.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may also be awarded.

17.  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 enlisting and processing into the RA and the eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of Armed Forces RE codes and RA RE codes. 

18.  RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, however, the disqualification is waivable.  Certain persons who have received nonjudicial punishment are so disqualified, as are persons with bars to reenlistment, and those discharged under the provisions of chapters 9, 10, 11, 13, and 
14 of Army Regulation 635-200.

19.  The Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA), in determining qualifications for benefits administered by that agency generally holds that an individual who accepts a discharge prior to completion of her complete term of obligated service may not be eligible for benefits unless or until the DVA or the Service Department determines that the early discharge amounted to a complete and unconditional separation from the service. 

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized her rights.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate 
considering all the facts of the case.

3.  Additionally, the applicant was assigned a RE code in accordance with regulations then in effect.  There appears to be no basis for removal or waiver of the disqualification that established the basis for the RE code.

4.  Further, the Board noted the applicant’s contention about not understanding 
the discharge appeals process.  However, on 11 January 1994, during the discharge process, the applicant authenticated a statement with her own signature in which she stated that she understood “if she received a discharge/character of service which was less than honorable, she could make application to the ADRB or the Army Board for Correction of Military Records for an upgrade of her discharge.”

5.	Therefore, it would not be appropriate to change the applicant’s records to 
show she was honorably discharged or to change her RE code from her second period of enlistment which was from 17 September 1992 to 23 February 1994.

6.	However, it appears that she should have been considered as having been 
issued a complete and unconditional separation for the honorable period of service from 18 January 1989-16 September 1992.  This period of service was fully satisfactory.  She had no indisciplines and she served for more than 
3 years on that enlistment.  She also achieved pay grade E-4 during her first enlistment.

7.  Such an action would provide a basis for the Department of Veteran Affairs to 
take favorable action on any requests from the applicant for veteran benefits based on this period of honorable service.

8.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected, only as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the individual was eligible for a complete and unconditional separation from the military at the time of her honorable discharge on 16 September 1992.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

INW_____  SK_____  EJA_____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		Irene N. Wheelwright
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999026889	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19940223	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, CH 14 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A67.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.6700	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.