MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           20 June 2000      
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000040242

	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	
	Ms. McKim-Spilker.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Van B. Cunningham		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, 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 general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to honorable (HD), and that his reenlistment code be changed.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was young and made mistakes in the past; and, that he is now pursuing an upgrade of his discharge because he is seeking employment with the government. 

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

On 6 October 1981 he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for a period of 3 years unassigned.  He successfully completed basic combat training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina and advanced individual training in military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman) at Fort Benning, Georgia.  He arrived at his first permanent duty station in Germany on 2 February 1982.

On 28 April 1982 he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ, for disobeying a lawful order not to consume alcoholic beverages in the Wildflicken Training Area.  The punishment imposed consisted of a reduction to private/E-1 (suspended for 90 days), a forfeiture of $128 pay per month for 3 months, and 7 days restriction and extra duty.

On 20 December 1982 he accepted NJP for committing an assault upon a German police officer.  The punishment imposed consisted of a reduction to private/E-1, a forfeiture of $286 pay per month for 2 months, 45 days restriction, and 30 days extra duty.  

Between 27 July to 30 September 1982 the applicant was formally counseled by his chain of command for the following:  absenting himself from his place of duty; unsatisfactory appearance in uniform; failure to shave; missing movement to mount training; making offensive gestures to the first sergeant while in formation; missing formation; consuming alcoholic beverages; disobeying orders; failing to maintain his area in a satisfactory manner; and, substandard performance.

On 12 January 1983 his commanding officer notified him of his intent to initiate action to separate him from the Army under the provisions of Chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of unsatisfactory performance.  The unit commander indicated that his specific reasons for initiating separation action were:  the applicant’s poor attitude; lack of motivation; continued use of alcohol; his need for constant supervision; and, his many acts of misconduct and pattern of misbehavior. 

On 17 January 1983 the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation for unsatisfactory performance with issuance of a general discharge (GD).  Accordingly, on 4 February 1983 the applicant was discharged.  He was credited with 1 year, 3 months, and 29 days active military service.  

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander’s judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.

The applicant’s DD 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows that he was assigned Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes “JHJ, JKJ”, and Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) Codes RE-3, and 3C.

AR 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.  Table 2-3 (SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table), AR 635-5 (Separation Documents) establishes the proper reentry codes to assign to soldier separating from the Army.

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 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 code, including RA RE codes.

RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.  RE-3C applies to persons who have completed more than 4 months service who do not meet the basic eligibility pay grade requirements of chapter 2, AR 601-280, or who have been denied reenlistment under the Qualitative Retention process according to chapter 10, AR 601-280.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.  

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.  The applicant’s discharge proceedings appear to have been conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time of his separation. 

2.  The applicant was assigned the appropriate SPD code based on the regulatory guidance for soldiers separating under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance.  Additionally, RE-3 and 3C were the properly assigned RE codes.    

3.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

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

__vbc___  __jea___  ___ewl__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000040242	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	200000620	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19830204	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C13	
DISCHARGE REASON	144.4900.0000	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 	144.9235.0000	
2. 	144.9301.0000	
3. 	144.0100.0000	
4.		
5.		
6.