MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           12 December 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000041898

	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. Walter Avery, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		Member	
	Ms. Lana E. McGlynn		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: Reconsideration of his earlier appeal to correct his records by upgrading his discharge.  In addition to the previous request, the applicant also requests the upgrading of his reentry (RE) code on his               DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that since his discharge he has matured and possibly has the desire to reenlist as a reservist.  Further, that while his life has dramatically changed for the better upgrading his RE code will help him in the future.

NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board’s previous consideration of the case on 22 January 1997 (Docket Number AC96-11202).

In the matter of his request for the upgrade of his discharge the applicant submits no new evidence or argument that requires Board consideration.

Inasmuch as the Board has not previously reviewed the issue of the RE code the following additional evidence of record is set forth.

The applicant submitted a letter of support from his employer to support his request to upgrade his RE code.  It states that the applicant began his employment on 2 February 1996 and that his initiative has allowed him to maintain several positions within the organization.  The applicant’s current position is stable and retains excellent growth potential and it is anticipated that the applicant will continue to grow with the company for many years.

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 September 1988.  He completed basic and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 76C (Equipment Records & Parts Specialist).  His awards include the Army Service Ribbon, the National Defense Service Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, the Overseas Service Ribbon, and the Sharpshooter Badge with rifle bar.

On 25 October 1989, the applicant failed the Army physical fitness test.

On 4 November 1989, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for disrespect in deportment toward a warrant officer and failure to obey a lawful order issued by a senior noncommissioned officer.  His punishment was extra duty and restriction for 14 days.

On 6 December 1989, the applicant accepted NJP for failure to obey a lawful order issued by a commissioned officer.  His punishment was reduction to pay grade E-2-suspended and extra duty and restriction for 45 days.

On 7 February 1990, the applicant failed the Army physical fitness test.

On 1 March 1990, a local Bar to Reenlistment Certificate was approved for the applicant.

On 24 October 1990, the applicant accepted summarized NJP for failure to obey a regulation.  His punishment was 5 days extra duty.

On 26 December 1990, the applicant accepted NJP for failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty and disobeying a lawful order not to drive his privately owned vehicle.  His punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-2, a forfeiture of $189.00 pay, and extra duty and restriction for 7 days.

Between 7 August 1990 and 7 December 1990, the applicant received five counseling statements for various offenses.

On 21 May 1991, the applicant accepted NJP for disobeying a lawful order on 3 April 1991, and driving while drunk on 21 April 1991.  His punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of $376.00 pay for 2 months, extra duty for 45 days, and restriction for 30 days.

On 31 July 1991, the applicant received a mental status evaluation.  The applicant was found to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings and to be mentally responsible.  He was psychiatrically cleared for administrative action as deemed appropriate by his command.

On 12 September 1991, the applicant’s commander initiated separation proceedings under Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct.  He cited the applicant’s wrongful use of cocaine.

On 17 September 1991, the applicant was advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action.  He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

On 21 September 1991, the applicant was charged by Military Police with drunken driving, assault and disorderly conduct.

On 15 November 1991, the applicant was placed in an absent without leave status.  The applicant did not return to military control prior to discharge 

On 22 January 1992, the appropriate commander approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be separated with an under other than honorable conditions discharge.

On 31 January 1992, the applicant was separated with an under other than honorable conditions discharge, under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 14, Misconduct-Pattern of Misconduct.  He had completed 3 years, 2 months and 1 day of creditable active service and lost time for the period 15 November 1991 to 31 January 1992.

On 4 November 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgraded discharge.

AR 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, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.

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.  AR 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army 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, 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 NJP are so disqualified, as are persons with bars to reenlistment, and those discharged under the provisions of chapters 9, 10, 13, and 14 of AR 635-200.

AR 635-5-1, Personnel Separations, Separation Program Designators (SPD) provides, in pertinent part, that a soldier discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 14 is assigned the SPD code of JKM.

AR 635-5, Separation Documents, provides, in pertinent part, that a soldier separated with a SPD code of JKM will be assigned a RE code of RE-3.

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.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  Considering the numerous offenses and the nature of the offenses that resulted in the applicant’s separation and considering his entire record of service, the type of discharge given was and still is appropriate.

3.  However, at the time of his separation from the service the wrong reentry code was entered on his records.  Therefore, it would be appropriate to correct his records to show his reentry code as RE-3 instead of RE-4.  The Army Review Boards Agency Support Division will be requested to make the appropriate administrative correction.

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.

NOTE:  The Army Review Boards Agency Support Division, St. Louis will be requested to take the necessary administrative action to correct the applicant’s record to reflect his reentry code as RE-3.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__fne____  ___hbo__  ____lem_  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000041898	
SUFFIX		
RECON	AC9611202	
DATE BOARDED	20001212	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 14 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION		
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.