MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            14 September 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000039845

	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. Robert J. McGowan		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Member	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge Jr.		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 to RE-1.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was separated with an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial; that the ADRB upgraded his discharge to general under honorable conditions.  He wants his RE code upgraded from RE-4 to RE-1 in order to reenlist.  In support of his application, he submits a 26 March 2000 letter to the Board.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years on 9 August 1983 and later extended that enlistment by 17 months.  Upon completion of all required military training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 05K (Electronic Warfare/Signal Intelligence Non-Morse Interceptor) and assigned to Fort Devens, Massachusetts.

At Fort Devens, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for:  three specifications of absence without leave (AWOL) from 24 March 1987 through 25 March 1987, 22 April 1987 through 23 April 1987, and 12 May 1987 through 1 June 1987; and one specification of disobeying the lawful order of a commissioned officer.  On 2 June 1987, he consulted with legal counsel and requested separation for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200.  The separation authority accepted the applicant's request on 3 June 1987.

On 4 June 1987, the applicant was separated with a UOTHC discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10 in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had 3 years, 9 months, and 2 days of creditable service and 25 days of lost time due to AWOL.  His DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty, reflected an RE Code of RE-4, not eligible to reenlist.

On 6 October 1995, the applicant’s petition for a discharge upgrade was rejected by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB).  Subsequently, on 12 June 1999, he appeared, without counsel, before the ADRB at a personal appearance hearing in Chicago, Illinois, and his request was approved on 17 June 1999.  The ADRB upgraded his discharge to general under honorable conditions, but left the reason and authority for separation unchanged.  His RE Code was also left unchanged.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Army policy states that although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOHC is normally considered appropriate.

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 enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the US Army Reserve.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment. That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes.  RE-4 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service.

Army Regulation 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes, contains narrative reasons for discharge, the appropriate SPD codes for those narrative reasons, and a cross-reference to the applicable RE code.  Soldiers separated "For The Good Of The Service" under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10 are issued an RE code of RE-4.

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 applicant’s discharge was upgraded to general under honorable conditions by the ADRB; however, the ADRB chose not to change the reason and authority for discharge.

3.  The applicant's RE code is appropriate for his reason and authority for separation.  The Board agrees with the ADRB's action to upgrade the applicant's discharge without changing the reason and authority.

4.  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

__rvo___  __mkp___  __eja____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000039845	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000914	
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.