MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           5 April 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028238

	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.

	Mrs. Joyce A. Hughes		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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 he believes the RE-3C code that he received upon his separation was a clerical error.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  In effect, it is maintained that the RE code of 3C was
assigned in error as a bar to reenlistment had not been initiated prior to his discharge.  It is also put forth that the criteria for a bar to reenlistment as described in AR 601-280, para 2-6, had not been met.  That is, the applicant did not have recent NJP, low aptitude, or lack of potential for further service, etc.

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

 He was born on 13 July 1954.  He completed12 years of formal education.  On 18 October 1977, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed basic combat training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, and advanced individual training at Fort Gordon, Georgia.
He was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 36K10 (Senior Field Wireman).  His service was continuous through reenlistments and extensions.

On 24 January 1986, the applicant was honorably discharged, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 4, Expiration Term of Service  (ETS).  He completed 8 years, 3 months and 7 days of honorable military service.  His pay grade at the time of separation was E-4.  He was assigned a RE Code of RE-3C, in accordance with AR 601-280.

He was awarded the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon, the Army Lapel Button, the Army Commendation Medal and the Marksman Badge with the Hand Grenade Bar.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 4 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, for the discharge or release from active duty upon termination of enlistment, and other periods of active duty or active duty for training.  A soldier separated upon ETS or fulfillment of service obligation will be awarded a character of service of 
honorable, unless the soldier is in entry-level status and service is uncharacterized.

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 601-280 section VIII, paragraph
2-22 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for soldiers, who must not
exceed various retention control points by more than 29 days before expiration of contracted service (that is, reenlistment or extension).  Soldiers in pay grade E-4 may not exceed 8 years and 29 days total service at the end of the contracted period of service.  Soldiers on a standing promotion list to the next higher rank will be considered under the RCP criteria for the higher rank.

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-3C applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, due to grad and service requirements.  In this case, disqualification was not waivable since he could not be reenlisted to serve beyond his RCP.

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 or procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  The applicant has in excess of 8 years service at the time of separations in January 1986.  As such, he was not eligible for reenlistment because of his RCP of 8 years for a solider in pay grade E-4.

4.  There is no evidence of record that he was on a standing list for promotion to 
pay grade E-5.

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

RECOMMENDATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__rvo___  __sk____  __le____  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028238 	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000405	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.0300	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.