PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:             25 July 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2000035257

	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	
	Mr. Walter Avery, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. John H. Kern		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 the appropriate military records be corrected to show a reentry eligibility (RE) code which would allow enlistment.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that his current RE code does not correctly reflect his over 13 years of honorable service and is preventing him from enlisting in the National Guard (NG).

4.  In support of his application he submits a letter of recommendation signed by the assistant chief of staff for logistics of the Virginia NG.  The writer states the applicant exhibits the personal characteristic and traits that would make him an excellent candidate for the NG.  Also submitted were several certificates of achievements presented to the applicant by the security firm he works for.

5.  The applicant’s military records show that he entered the Regular Army on 15 September 1975.  He completed training as a short range air defense crewman serving until his honorable discharge on 2 April 1978.  The applicant re-enlisted on 3 April 1978 serving until his honorable separation on 11 April 1989 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, for expiration term of service with a Separation Program Designator code of JBK and a RE-4 code.

6.  Between 1985 and 1988, the applicant was counseled on 19 different occasions for failing to properly lead his squad, his performance on the Army physical fitness test, his skill qualification test performance and failing to meet Army weight standards.

7.  On 22 May 1987 the applicant’s commander notified him of his intention to impose a local bar to reenlistment against him.

8.  On 24 February 1988, the applicant’s commander notified him he had reviewed the local bar to reenlistment and had decided that it should remain in effect.

9.  On 9 January 1989, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for failing to report a lost weapon.

10.  On 20 January 1989 the applicant was notified that a Department of the Army (DA) selection board had determined that he was to be barred from reenlistment under the DA Qualitative Management Program (QMP).

11.  AR 601-280, Army Retention Programs, chapter 8-3, provides, in pertinent part, that an approved local bar to reenlistment will take precedence over the QMP.  If the bar is removed, the soldier will be processed under the QMP.

12.  AR 635 –5, Separation Documents, Interim change 1 dated 2 October 1989, provides, in pertinent part that, RE-3 is assigned to soldiers with a local bar to reenlistment who have less than 18 years active service.

13.  Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program, provides guidance for determining RE codes.  RE-3 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.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record indicates that the applicant was honorably discharged and was assigned RE-4.  However, the reentry code is not commensurate with the applicant's overall character of military service. 

2.  It is the opinion of this Board, that the applicant's DD Form 214 was erroneously annotated with a RE-4 code.  The applicant should have received a RE-3 code, which along with an approved waiver allows reentry.

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

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by issuing a DD Form 215 (Corrections to the DD Form 214), showing that the individual concerned was honorably discharged on 11 April 1989, and that he was assigned a reentry code of RE-3. 

BOARD VOTE: 

__tsk____  ___sk___  ___jhk __  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

	__________Ted S. Kanamine________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000035257	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000725	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.