MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           21 December 1999                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028114

	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. Joyce A. Hughes		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Meta Waller		Member	
	Ms. Debra Williams		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 disqualification’s which preclude reenlistment.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was accused of forging checks, stealing and using government ID card.  He confessed because he was threaten with a court-martial if he didn’t confess to what they said.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 November 1997, for 3 years with no prior service.

On 15 July 1998, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, uniform Code of Military Justice, for wrongful destruction of government property (military ID card), larceny of government property (military ID card), housebreaking (barracks) and larceny of private funds by means of check/making and uttering worthless checks.  His imposed punishment
was a forfeiture of $463.00 pay per month for 2 months, 45 days extra duty and 45 days restriction.

On 11 August 1998, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct.  The commander’s recommendation was based on the applicant’s misconduct and action which indicated that he could not be rehabilitated for productive military service.  On the same day the applicant completed a physical evaluation and was found fit for retention.

On 18 August 1998, the applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him, he waived 
his rights.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.

On 25 August 1998, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a general discharge.  On 31 August 1998, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-2 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct with a general discharge.  He completed 9 months and 18 days of creditable active service.  He was given a reentry code of RE-3.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 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.

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 received nonjudicial punishment are so disqualified, as are persons with bars to reenlistment, and those discharged under the provisions of chapters 9, 10, 13, and 14 of Army Regulation 635-200.

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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service.

3.  The regulation requires that at the time of discharge RE codes will be assigned based on the service record and the reason for discharge.  The applicant’s assigned reentry code was based on his overall record of military service.

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

5.  Therefore, the type of discharge directed, the reasons for separation and the assigned reentry code are appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s requests.

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

_hof____  __mw____  __dw____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028114	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991221	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19980831	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chap 14	
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.6000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.