MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:            24 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999028568

	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. Carl W. S. Chun
Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Director
Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John N. Slone		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning 		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 Item 26 (Separation Code) and Item 
27 (Reentry Eligibility (RE) Code ) on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be changed to more favorable codes so that he will be able to reenter active duty through the Army Guard/Reserve (AGR) program.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That he submits copies of his DD Form 214, his personnel qualification record, both military and civilian training certificates, college transcripts, military academic reports, a noncommissioned officer evaluation report for the period March-November 1997, promotion orders and his enlistment contract in the US Army Reserve (USAR) in support of his request.

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

That he had prior honorable service in the Regular Army (RA) from 21 September 1982-23 March 1986.  On 24 March 1986, he reenlisted in the RA for 4 years, his previous military occupational specialty (MOS) 88N (Traffic Management Coordinator) and pay grade E-4.  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-5.

On 13 February 1987, while assigned to Fort George G. Meade, Maryland nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice was imposed against the applicant.  The proceedings are not available, but other evidence of record shows that it was for issuance of a worthless check.  His punishment included a suspended reduction from pay grade E-5 to pay grade E-4.  

On 11 August 1987, the applicant’s suspended reduction to pay grade E-4 was vacated when he tested positive for possession and use of a controlled substance (cocaine) on or about 7 July 1987.  There is no evidence of record that shows further NJP action was taken for this second offense. 

On or about 13 October 1988, he was assigned to Korea.  He had been promoted again to pay grade E-5.

On or about 16 August 1989, the applicant’s commander submitted a bar to reenlistment for reasons unknown.  The applicant submitted an appeal.  Neither document is contained in the record.

On 22 August 1989, the applicant’s commander stated in an endorsement to the approving authority that the applicant’s appeal of the bar was not truthful.  He stated that the applicant had uttered in excess of $2,000 worth of worthless checks during the “January-February time frame,” and that prior to this action he had distorted the facts and lied to his superiors.

On 1 November 1989, the applicant’s bar to reenlistment was approved.  

On an unknown date the applicant requested to be discharged under the provisions of chapter 16, Army Regulation 635-200, due to his perceived inability to overcome his bar to reenlistment.

On 6 November 1989, the appropriate authority approved the request and directed the issuance of a honorable discharge, due to a locally imposed bar to reenlistment.

On 13 December 1989, after returning to the United States from Korea, the applicant was separated with an honorable discharge.  He was assigned an RE code of RE-3 and a separation code of KGF due to a locally imposed bar to reenlistment.  He was credited with 7 years, 2 months and 23 days total active service, of which 3 years, 8 months and 20 days was on the current enlistment and 3 years, 6 months and 3 days on his prior active duty enlistment.  He also had 2 months and 7 days prior inactive service. 

After he was discharged from active duty, he served in the Maryland Army National Guard for 1 year from November l992 to November 1993.  Subsequently, he enlisted in the Army Reserve (USAR) and he is currently serving with the 354th Civil Affairs Brigade, USAR.  He has been promoted to pay grade E-6.  He served on active duty in Germany/Hungary for 7 months and 
5 days from April to November 1997.

On 1 December 1999, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for a change in the reason for his discharge.  

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 16 covers discharges caused by changes in service obligations.  Paragraph 16-5 applies to personnel denied reenlistment and provides that soldiers who receive DA imposed or locally imposed bars to reenlistment, and who perceive that they will be unable to overcome the bar may apply for immediate discharge.  Incident to the request the member must state that he understands that recoupment of unearned portions of any enlistment or reenlistment bonus is required and that later reenlistment is not permitted.  Army policy states that the service of personnel separated under this paragraph will be characterized as honorable.

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 applicant’s for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of Armed Forces RE codes and RA RE codes. 

RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, however, the disqualification is waivable.  

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 requested discharge prior to the end of his term of service based on his perception that he would not be able to overcome a locally imposed bar to reenlistment.  In doing so, he acknowledged that he understood that he would not be permitted to reenlist at a later date.

3.	His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with 
applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.

4.  An RE-3 code applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable as determined by enlistment officials and the needs of the Army.

5.  The documents that the applicant provided and his subsequent service in the Army National Guard and USAR do not provide a basis for the change in his separation (reason for discharge) code or his RE code.

6.  In view of the circumstances in this case, both the assigned RE code and the separation code were, and still are, appropriate.  The applicant has submitted no evidence that these codes are in error or should be changed.  

7.  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

__jns____  __mdm__  __mw ___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
						Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999028568	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000608	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19891213	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chapter 16  	
DISCHARGE REASON	Bar to reenlistment	
BOARD DECISION	(NC)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A112.1000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.