MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            21 November 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2000035661

	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		Director	
	Mr. Richard H. Allen		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas A. Paqan		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		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, correction of his military records to change a reentry eligibility (RE) code from RE-3 to RE-1 which was given to him when he was discharged in 1996.

APPLICANT STATES:  In essence, that he was unfairly treated because of "undue influence" (not further clarified).  He claims that he was attending a military school at Fort Lee, Virginia.  He had to call the "Pentagon" because of problems in his unit.  The Pentagon investigated and he was placed in the labor platoon.  They treated him like a slave until he called his Congresswoman.  Then he was sent home and given an RE-3.  Physical evidence has been lost or "dislocated."  He has born the scars ever since.  He would like to reenlist full time.  He submits copies of correspondence between him and his Congresswoman's office.  He also submits a copy of a National Guard Bureau Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) issued on 11 March 1998, and a certificate from the Department of Veteran Affairs (DVA) stating his records show active military service from 9 November 1989 through 23 February 1990, which is supported by a DA Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) verifying this period of service.  

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

He first enlisted in the Army Reserve (USAR) for 8 years on 6 October 1989, for duty with a Troop Program Unit (TPU) of the USAR in Springfield, Massachusetts.  He served his Initial Active Duty for Training (IADT) tour at Fort Benning, Georgia from 9 November 1989 through 23 February 1990 and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).  A DD Form 214 was issued at that time verifying that he served on active duty for 3 months and 15 days and was returned to his USAR unit at the completion of his period of IADT.  His characterization of service was classified as honorable.  No RE code was assigned.

On 19 March 1990, he was voluntarily transferred from his TPU to the USAR Control Group (Annual Training (AT)).  On 13 July 1990, he enlisted in the Connecticut Army National Guard (CTARNG) for duty in MOS 11B.  He was advanced to pay grade E-3 on 13 May 1991.  

On 13 December 1991, the applicant was discharged from the CTARNG under the provisions of National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participation (missed drill periods), with a general discharge.  He was transferred to the USAR Control Group (AT).  He was reduced to pay grade E-2 in connection with the separation action.  He was credited with 2 years,
2 months and 8 days total active and Reserve (inactive) service at this point.  He was assigned an RE code of RE-3.  

On 23 September 1992, the applicant was voluntarily reassigned to a TPU of the USAR in Springfield, Massachusetts for duty in MOS 11B.  His rank was shown as private first class.

On 20 April 1993, he was released from his assignment with the TPU in Springfield, and was reassigned to the USAR Control Group (AT) by reason of unsatisfactory performance.  

On 8 December 1994, the applicant was released from his assignment to the USAR Control Group and was voluntarily transferred to the CTARNG.  On the same date he enlisted in the CTARNG for duty in MOS 11B, with an Infantry battalion in New Britain, Connecticut, in pay grade E-2.  

On 17 April 1996, the applicant was discharged from the CTARNG, with a general discharge, in accordance with NGR 600-200, by reason of unsatisfactory participation.  Again he was transferred to the USAR Control Group (AT).  His rank remained private, pay grade E-2.  He was credited with 6 years, 6 months and 12 days active and inactive service for pay at that point.  He was assigned an RE code of RE-3.  

On 9 May 1996, the applicant was voluntarily transferred from the control group to the 439th Quartermaster Company (Petroleum), in New Haven, Connecticut, which was a TPU of the USAR.  His rank remained as a private, pay grade E-2.  

On 24 September 1996, he was assigned to the US Army Quartermaster Center and School, at Fort, Lee Virginia for retraining in MOS 77F (Petroleum Supply Specialist).  This would have been considered a period of active duty.  On 
24 October 1996, he underwent a separation type medical examination at Fort Lee.  The examination form is marked "pending separation," but no further details are available.  On 30 October 1996, he was administratively relieved from his course at Fort Lee for disciplinary reasons, specific details unknown.  He would have been returned to duty with his TPU, but there are no orders or copies of a DD Form 214 showing his release from active duty.  No RE code would have been assigned.  

On 15 January 1997, he was notified by his TPU that he had missed four multiple unit training assemblies (MUTA) on 11 and 12 January 1997, which were unexcused.  Separation action from his USAR is not a matter of record.  Further, soldiers discharged from the USAR are not assigned an RE code.

On 23 February 1998, an NGB Form 22-3 (Request for Waiver) was initiated by the unit commander, a captain, of the 712th Maintenance Company, Camp Hartell, Windsor Locks, Connecticut requesting that the Adjutant General, State of Connecticut issue a waiver to enlist the applicant in the CTARNG for duty in MOS 63B (Light Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).  The reason the waiver was being requested was that he had been previously discharged from the CTARNG for unsatisfactory participation with an RE code of RE-3.  This request was approved on 25 February 1998.

Therefore, on 5 March 1998, the applicant was enlisted in the CTARNG, in pay grade E-2, for 3 years.  No bonus was authorized and he was given 1 year to become MOS qualified in MOS 63W (Wheel Vehicle Repairer).  In section 
VI (Remarks) of the DD Form 1966/3 (Record of Military Processing-Armed Forces of the United States) with his enlistment contract (DD Form 4 Series), the applicant signed a statement which said:  "I understand that I will be tested for the presence of drugs and alcohol.  I also understand that I will be discharged form the ARNG if my drug test comes back positive."

On 11 March 1998, the applicant was discharged from the CTARNG and as a Reserve of the Army with an uncharacterized discharge, in accordance with NGR 600-220, paragraph 8-26j(2), Acts or Patterns of Misconduct because of a positive urinalysis during his enlistment processing.  He was credited with 7 days service in his latest period of service.  He was credited with 8 years, 4 months and 10 days total service for pay (both active and inactive).  He was assigned an RE code of RE-3.  

There is no evidence of record that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for a change in his discharge which could result in a change of his RE code.  

Paragraph 8-26, NGR 600-200, outlines the reasons, applicability codes and board requirements for administrative discharges from the Reserve of the Army, the State ARNG only, or both.  Paragraph 8-26j(2) states that for cases of positive urinalysis during entrance physical examinations of prior service enlistees or transferees from other components, issue uncharacterized discharges.  An RE code of RE-3 will be assigned.  

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.  RE codes are not assigned by the USAR at the time soldiers are discharged from that component.  Army Regulation 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army and the USAR.  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 Army RE codes.  The respective services also may issue periodic instructions to recruiting personnel for additional restrictions and changes in criteria for reenlistment of former service members, based on the needs of the armed service involved.  

National Guard Regulation 600-200 provides in paragraph 8-26, for the issuance of an RE code when a soldier is discharged or separated only from the ARNG or a concurrent discharge from the ARNG and the Reserve of the United States.  Chapter 2 of that regulation prescribes the basic eligibility criteria, policy and procedures for enlistment in the ARNG, to include prior service members.

Former soldiers assigned an RE-3 may reenlist in the Regular Army, USAR or the ARNG, but only with a waiver which must be processed by recruiting officials.

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, in this case, has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

2.  A review of the applicant's records fails to show that he was assigned an RE code at the time he was released from his schooling at Fort Lee, Virginia in October 1996.  He would have simply been returned to his USAR unit for further duty.  

3.  If he was subsequently separated from the USAR, with the release from the schooling at Fort Lee as one of the basis for the separation action, that was within the purview of the USAR separating officials at that time.  An RE code would not have been assigned by the USAR at the time of his separation.  The Board must presume administrative regularity in any separation  action from the USAR between October 1996 and the date of his enlistment in the CTARNG in March 1998.  

4.  It is noted that the applicant was granted a waiver of an RE-3 code at the time of his reenlistment in the CTARNG in March 1998 for unsatisfactory participation, during an unspecified prior period of USAR or ARNG service.  

5.  The Board also notes that the applicant appears to have tested positive for use of illegal drugs during his processing for reenlistment in the CTARNG in March 1998.  He was immediately discharged, with an uncharacterized discharge in accordance with the provisions of the warning statement on his enlistment document and NGR 600-200, paragraph 8-26j(2) concerning testing positive for use of drugs during enlistment processing.  He was also assigned an RE code of RE-3 in accordance with the same referenced paragraph of NGR 600-200.    

6.  Therefore, the Board concludes that the applicant's separation from the CTARNG in March 1998 was proper and equitable.  Further, the assignment of an RE code of RE-3 was likewise appropriate.  He has provided no basis to change either the discharge action or the assigned RE code.  

7.  The applicant is encouraged to work with his local recruiter to explore the possibility of obtaining a waiver to reenlist in the military service component of his choice.  However, this is not a guarantee of the right to reenlist.  Reenlistment restrictions may apply and the needs of the service component are paramount.

8.  Likewise, the applicant is still entitled to make application to the ADRB under the provisions of Title 10, United States Code, Section 1553, for a change in his discharge which could result in a change to his assigned RE code. 

9.  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

__tap ___  __teo ___  ___rwa __  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000035661	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001121	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UNCHAR	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19980311	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	NGR 600-200, Chapter 8-26j(2) 	
DISCHARGE REASON	A67.70	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	144.00	
2.	100.03	
3.	A01.01	
4.	A01.43	
5.	A92.17	
6.	A94.39