PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           20 July 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000035069

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Chairperson	
	Ms. Ann M. Campbell		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth L. Wright		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that his reentry code be changed from a 4 to a 1 or another code that will allow him to reenlist.

3.  The applicant states that he enlisted for a military occupational specialty (MOS) that had a 60 percent attrition rate.  He failed the math portions of his course.  He had always done poorly in math courses.  He did not fail on purpose. 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 July 1998 for MOS 96D (Imagery Analyst).  He successfully completed basic training.

5.  On 1 December 1998, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance, for failing to meet the 96D course requirements.  He had failed the map reading tests several times.  On 15 December 1998, the commander recommended the applicant receive a reentry code of 4 citing the applicant’s attitude and behavior that was “clearly prejudicial to the good order and discipline demanded by the military.  This individual has shown no remorse nor any attempt to improve himself, and therefore could never become a productive member of the United States Armed Forces.”

6.  The applicant waived consulting counsel and submitted a statement in his own behalf.  He stated that he did the best he could but was unable to comprehend some of the course material.  He gave it his best shot and was unable to pass the course.  He made the decision to go back home, attend college and pursue a career in law enforcement.  He requested the approval authority support the company commander’s recommendation he receive an honorable discharge. 

7.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the soldier receive an honorable discharge.  The approving authority did not comment one way or the other on the company commander’s recommendation that the applicant receive a reentry code of 4.

8.  On 17 December 1998, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-2, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance, separation code JHJ, with an honorable discharge.  He had completed 4 months and 24 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.  

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member may be separated when it is determined that he or she is unqualified for further military service because of unsatisfactory performance.  Commanders will separate a soldier for unsatisfactory performance when it is clearly established that, in the commander’s judgment, the soldier will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.  This reason will not be used if the soldier is in an entry level status.  

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11 sets the policy and prescribes procedures for separating members who were voluntarily enlisted in the Regular Army, National Guard or Army Reserve, are in an entry level status and, before the date of the initiation of separation action, have completed no more than 180 days of creditable continuous service, and have demonstrated that they are not qualified for retention for reasons including not meeting the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude or ability.  For Regular Army soldiers, entry level status is the first 180 days of continuous active duty.  Unless the reason for separation requires a specific characterization, a soldier will be awarded an uncharacterized description of service if in an entry-level status.  Separation code JGA identifies this reason for separation.

11.  Army Regulation 635-5 states that reentry code 3 is given for either separation codes JHJ or JGA.

12.  Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned reentry 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 U.S. Army Reserve.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of armed forces reentry codes, including RA reentry codes.

13.  Reentry code 3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waiverable.  Reentry code 4 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service and the disqualification is not waiverable.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board concludes that several Government errors occurred in this case.

2.  Since the applicant was an entry level soldier, he should have been separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11 for entry level status performance or conduct and received an uncharacterized description of service.  However, since the applicant did not ask for this correction and since an “uncharacterized” description of service is often viewed as an unfavorable description of service, the Board will take no action to correct this error. 

3.  An error was also made in giving the applicant a reentry code of 4.  The company commander exceeded his authority in recommending the applicant receive a reentry code of 4.  Reentry codes are directly linked to the reason for separation.  By regulation, the applicant should have received a reentry code of 3 with a narrative reason of either unsatisfactory performance (chapter 13) or entry level status performance or conduct (chapter 11).  

4.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

That the applicant’s DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, item 27 be corrected to read “3.” 

BOARD VOTE:  

________  ________  ________  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

3.  The applicant states 

4.  The applicant’s military records show that

5.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.

2.

3.

4.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by 

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__sac___  __amc___  __klw___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

			Samuel A. Crumpler
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000035069	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000720	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.0300	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.