MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           16 February 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028378

	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. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Ms. Meta Waller		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, that his discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded.  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, he was removed from flightline duties by his superiors and was given menial duties to perform.  This was upsetting to him, along with his immaturity, he acted irrationally and he absent himself from his command.

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

He was born on 12 December 1950.  He completed 10 years of formal education.
On 24 March 1969, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army  for 3 years with no prior service.  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-4.

On 2 May 1970, the applicant received a letter of reprimand for disobeying a lawful order.  However, the particulars are missing from his record.

On 10 September 1971, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 12 July to 20 August 1971 and from 22 August to 3 September 1971. 

On 15 September 1971, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf, but he declined to do so.

A physical evaluation found the applicant fit for retention.

On 1 October 1971, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  On 
7 October 1971, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-2, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of service with a discharge under honorable conditions.  He had 2 years, 6 months and 11 days of creditable active service and 46 days of lost time.  He was given a reentry code of RE-3.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority of the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provided, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

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 person not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.  Certain persons who have lost time, local bars to reenlistment and those discharged under the provisions of chapter 9, 10, 11, 13 and 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 are assigned an RE-3.

Recruiting personnel have the responsibility for initially determining whether an individual meets current enlistment criteria.  They are required to process a request for waiver under the provisions of chapter 4 of Army Regulation 601-210 (RA and Army Reserve Enlistment Program).  Therefore, since enlistment criteria does change, and since you have the right to apply for a waiver, it is suggested that you periodically visit your local recruiting station to determine if you should apply for a waiver.

On 17 January 1985, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the 
applicant’s request for an upgrade.

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 voluntary request for separation under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trail by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable
regulations.  There is no indication that the request was made under coercion or duress.

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

4.  The Regulation requires that at the time of discharge reentry codes will be assigned based on the service records and the reason for the discharge.  The applicant was correctly assigned reentry eligibility code RE-3.

5.  There appears to be no basis for removal or waiver of those disqualifications which established the basis for the reentry eligibility codes.

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

7.  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

__aao___  __clg___  __mw____  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028378	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000216	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19711007	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chapter 10 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.7000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.