MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            22 March 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028327

	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.
	Ms. Antoinette Farley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. James M. Alward		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Member	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		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 disqualifications which preclude reenlistment.

APPLICANT STATES:  His “reenlistment code is incorrect”.  He feels that after 
2 years of being released from the Army, he should have been able to reenlist back into the service with no problems.  Therefore, he states his RE code should have been RE-2 not RE-3.  He submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) as supporting documentation.

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

On 22 September 1988, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years.  
He completed both his basic combat training and his advanced individual training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B10 (Infantryman) at Fort Benning, Georgia. 

On 22 December 1988, he was assigned to Fort Ord, California, for duty in his MOS.  On 22 March 1989, he was advanced to pay grade E-2, which was the highest pay grade he achieved.

On 25 October 1990, the applicant was listed as being absent without leave (AWOL). He returned to military control on 7 December 1990 and was placed in pre-trial confinement at Fort Ord.  

On 7 January 1991, he was convicted by a SPCM of failure to go to his appointed place of duty (FTG) on 7 September 1990 and of being AWOL from 25 October to   7 December 1990.  His approved sentence included forfeiture of $450.00 pay per month for 3 months, reduction to pay grade E-1 and confinement at hard labor for 100 days, with credit for 31 days already served in confinement. 

Facts and circumstances concerning the discharge process are not in the applicant’s file.  However, on 5 April 1991 the applicant voluntarily signed 
a DD Form 214 showing he was being discharged with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge under the provision of chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconduct-minor disciplinary infractions.  At the time of discharge, the applicant had 2 years, 2 months, and 11 days of active service and 3 months and 31 days of lost time due to AWOL and military confinement. His reentry code is shown as RE-3.

On 12 May 1993, the applicant sought a discharge upgrade through the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB).  After a thorough review, the ADRB denied his request on 30 March 1995.

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, and convictions by civil authorities.  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 UOTHC is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter.  However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the soldier’s overall record.  Only a general court-martial convening authority may approve an honorable discharge or delegate approval authority for an honorable discharge under this provision of regulation.

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 code 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.  RE-3 codes may be waived in selected cases by recruiting officials based on the needs of the service.

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 appears to have been accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would have jeopardized his rights.  

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reason therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  The applicant was separated and assigned an RE code in accordance with regulations then in effect.

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

6.  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

__jma___  ___tsk___  __aao___  DENY APPLICATION

				Karl F. Schneider
				Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028327	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000322	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19910405	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200/CHAP 14	
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	ABCMR	
ISSUES         1.	A67.10	
2.	A133.00	
3.	A03.00	
4.	A123.01	
5.		
6.