MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:  23 January 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000041406

	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. Lee Cates		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy		Member	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		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 records be corrected to show that he was not separated on 7 May 1997, but extended or reenlisted.

APPLICANT STATES: That he lost his technician employment, due solely to termination of his military membership.  He overlooked that his enlistment would expire on 7 May 1997 and failed to realize that he needed to take steps to extend his enlistment.  He indicates that for several weeks prior to and several weeks thereafter the expiration of his term of service (ETS) his doctor had advised him to remain on sick leave and to stay away from his employment and military service pending improvement of his mental health.  He was suffering from anxiety and major depression caused by adverse circumstances of his employment and military service.  He then relates his version of the adverse circumstances of his employment, which started on 13 May 1994 when his commander ordered him to get a haircut and personally report back to him.  The following day he called in sick.  The next day he reported to his enlisted chain-of-command, not to his commander.  The applicant submits a comprehensive statement in support of his request. 

COUNSEL CONTENDS: Counsel contends the applicant was improperly separated and denied service continuation and lost his civilian technician employment.  Counsel submits a comprehensive brief in support of the request that recounts the applicant’s statement.

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

During the period 7 July to 31 August 1971, the applicant served in the Air Force Reserve.

During the period 1 September 1971 to 4 November 1974, he served on active duty in the Air Force and was separated in pay grade E-4.

During the period 5 November 1974 to 14 August 1981, he had no military status.

During the period 15 August 1981 to 7 May 1997, he served in the Missouri Army National Guard (MOARNG).

On 1 November 1981, he was promoted to sergeant, pay grade E-5.

On 1 November 1984, he was promoted to staff sergeant, pay grade E-6.

On 2 October 1989, he was reduced to sergeant, pay grade E-5, based on inefficiency.

On 9 August 1991, he was given a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) for disrespect to a commissioned officer on 12 May 1991.

On 11 June 1994, he was given another LOR for his failure to comply with a direct order issued by his commanding officer on 13 May 1994, to have his hair cut and mustache trimmed.  The next day, he called in sick.  The following day, he reported to his enlisted chain-of-command, not to the commander as ordered. 

On 18 March 1995, he was given a formal counseling based on his conduct unbecoming a noncommissioned officer, which he refused to sign.

On 7 May 1995, he was given a formal counseling based on his showing of disrespect to a commissioned officer.

On 7 May 1995, his 11 June 1994 LOR was extended.

On 7 May 1995, he was barred from reenlistment.

On 13 October 1995, he was given the option of transferring in his civilian (Military Technician Grade WG-8) and military grade (E-5) to another unit, transferring in a lower grade to another unit or separating from the MOARNG.

On 28 November 1995, his bar to reenlistment was reviewed and extended.

On 11 December 1995, he was transferred in a lower grade to another unit. He agreed to an administrative reduction to pay grade E-4, after one year.

On 29 April 1996, the Adjutant General of MOARNG lifted his bar to reenlistment for 1 year.

On 3 May 1996, he extended his enlistment for a period of 1 year, until 7 May 1997.

On 3 May 1997, a physical profile was approved based on moderate to severe Degenerative Joint Disease and mild ulnar (the inner and larger bone of the forearm) nerve compression on the left.

There is no evidence that the applicant was incapacitated during the months prior to or immediately following his discharge.

On 7 May 1997, he as honorably discharged under National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200, paragraph 8-26I, based on his ETS.  His separation document indicates he had 15 years, 8 months and 23 days during that period of service and 19 years and 2 days total service for pay.  Initially, he was assigned RE code 3; however, on 9 September 1998 it was changed to RE code 1.

On 14 September 1998, the Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) advised the applicant’s legal counsel that he “may be eligible for enlistment in the MOARNG, if there is a position vacancy in a unit for which he qualifies, and if he meets the applicable requirements of Chapter 2, NGR 600-200, including medical standards of Chapter 2, Army Regulation (AR) 40-501, as well as mental and physical qualifications.”

Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to separation or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  AR 601-210 and NGR 600-200 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA), the Army Reserve and the Army National Guard.  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-1 applies to persons completing an initial term of active service and indicates eligibility for enlistment, provided otherwise qualified.

RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.  Certain persons who have received non-judicial punishment are so disqualified.

Military Technician status/records do not come under the jurisdiction of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a presumption of regularity applies that the records of the individual concerned are correct.

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.  It appears the applicant was properly discharged on 7 May 1997.  Neither he nor counsel has shown otherwise.

2.  There is nothing in the available records indicating the applicant was incapable of reenlisting or extending his enlistment, or that he was improperly denied the options.

3.  There is nothing in the available records showing the applicant was entitled to medical processing upon separation.

4.  It is noted that military technician status/records do not come under the jurisdiction of this Board.
5.  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.

6.  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

__ls____  ___to_____  ___wm___ DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041406	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010123	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.110	Enl to ARNG	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.