MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           19 October 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000038523

	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. Leland A. Edwards		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		Member	
	Ms. Tracey L. Pinson		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: That his reentry eligibility (RE) code be changed from RE-3 to RE-1.

APPLICANT STATES: That he recently filed a request with the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to have his discharge upgraded.  What he really requests is to have his RE code changed to RE-1 in order to reenter the Army.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 August 1991.  Upon completion of the required training, he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 76V10 (Warehouse Specialist).

The highest grade attained by the applicant was pay grade E-4 (Specialist) on 1 March 1993.  He reenlisted on 26 January 1996 for a period of 3 years.

Between January and April 1998, the applicant was counseled on five different occasions for:  failure to report to his assigned place of duty; disrespect towards an NCO; provoking speech and gestures; disorderly conduct (resulting from alcohol consumption); and for self-injury without intent to avoid service.

After two suicide gestures on 13 April 1998, the applicant was referred for a mental status evaluation.  On 5 May 1998, the applicant underwent the mental status evaluation.  The Chief of Psychiatry diagnosed the applicant as an alcohol abuser.  He stated that the applicant was a minimal suicide risk at the time of the evaluation, but that the risk increased when the applicant was intoxicated and could not be predicted.  He recommended that the applicant be enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) for treatment of Alcohol Abuse with a focus on stress and anger management.  He stated that no further psychiatric evaluation was indicated, but recommended that the applicant be re-referred if further expressions of self-destructive ideation became evident.

On 26 May 1998, the applicant was administered nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice,  for disrespect to a superior commissioned officer.

On 4 August 1998, the applicant was apprehended by military police for larceny of non-appropriated fund property when he stole from the Post Exchange.  On 15 September 1998, he was administered NJP for this offense.

On 22 October 1998, the commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him under the provisions of chapter 14, AR 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct.  The commander’s recommendation was based on the applicant’s repeated acts of misconduct which indicated that he could not be rehabilitated for productive military service.  The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him.  He waived personal appearance, consideration and representation by counsel before a board of officers.

On 13 November 1998, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a discharge under honorable conditions.  On 2 December 1998, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-2 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, with a general discharge.  He had completed 7 years, 3 months and 25 days of creditable active service.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed.  Army policy states that a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.

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 the eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the RA 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 RA 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 and/or court-martial convictions are disqualified, as are persons with bars to reenlistment, and those discharged under the provisions of chapters 9, 10, 13, and 14 of Army Regulation 635-200.

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 this requirement.

2.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The applicant was separated under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct.  Such a separation mandates the issuance of an RE-3 code.

3.  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

__ewl___  __cjp____  __tlp____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000038523	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20001019	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	100.0300	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.