PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           14 September 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000043609

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		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 applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that the narrative reason for separation and the reentry (RE) code on his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty,     DD Form 214, be corrected.

3.  The applicant states that he was separated for family problems and he never had any disciplinary actions taken against him.  Therefore, he does not understand the narrative reason for separation and the RE code of 4, which does not allow him to reenlist.  He provides an award citation/order for award of the Army Achievement Medal as supporting evidence.

4.  The applicant's military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 May 1992 for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 91T (Animal Care Specialist).  He successfully completed basic training.

5.  On 21 October 1992, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for relief from the 91T course for non-academic reasons.  The basis for the recommendation was his aversion to performing required tasks,      i. e., his stated inability to perform euthanasia.  He acknowledged the notification and the recommendation was approved.  

6.  On 11 December 1992, the applicant was psychiatrically evaluated after being referred for such evaluation prior to chapter 11 administrative separation.  The applicant had requested discharge because of marital discord resulting from his geographical separation from his wife while in training.  No indication of a psychiatric disorder was found that would warrant disposition through medical channels.  He was found to be mentally responsible and to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings.

7.  On 17 December 1992, action was initiated to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for the inability to perform the requirements of the training in his MOS.  It appears the applicant waived consulting counsel and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

8.  The separation approval action is not available.

9.  On 23 December 1992, the applicant was released from active duty, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, unsatisfactory performance, with an honorable discharge.  He had completed     7 months and 2 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.  Item 28 of his DD Form 214 shows the narrative reason for his separation as unsatisfactory performance and his RE code as RE-4, disqualified for reenlistment and the disqualification is nonwaiverable.  His separation code was LHJ, involuntary release from active duty or transfer for unsatisfactory performance.  

10.  Permanent Order 8-7, Medical Center Brigade, dated 19 January 1993 awarded the applicant the Army Achievement Medal.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member may be separated when it is determined that he or she is unqualified for further military service because of unsatisfactory performance.  Commanders will separate a soldier for unsatisfactory performance when it is clearly established that, in the commander’s judgment, the soldier will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a 
satisfactory soldier.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, entry level performance and conduct, sets the policy and prescribes procedures for separating members who were voluntarily enlisted in the Regular Army, National Guard or Army Reserve, are in an entry level status and, before the date of the initiation of separation action, have completed no more than 180 days of creditable continuous service, and have demonstrated that they are not qualified for retention.  The following conditions are illustrations of conduct that does not qualify for retention:  cannot or will not adapt socially or emotionally to military life; cannot meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation or self-discipline; or have demonstrated character and behavior characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service. Unless the reason for separation requires a specific characterization, a soldier will be awarded an uncharacterized description of service if in an entry-level status.

13.  Army Regulation 635-5 prescribes the separation documents prepared for soldiers upon release from active military service.  In pertinent part, it states that RE code 3 is given when the separation code is LHJ.

14.  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 U.S. 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.

15.  RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  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.

2.  There is evidence of record to show that the applicant was initially considered for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, entry level performance and conduct.  However, there is no evidence to show when, or if, the chapter 11 action was actually initiated.  It had to have been initiated prior to approximately 22 November 1992, when he completed 180 days of continuous active service.  Presumably, since the evidence of record also shows that he was referred for a psychiatric evaluation on 21 December 1992, after the 180 day time frame, the chapter 11 paperwork was not initiated in time.

3.  Since a chapter 11 separation would not have been authorized to be initiated on or after approximately 22 November 1992, separation under the provisions of chapter 13 would then have been appropriate.  The basis for recommending the applicant’s separation was his aversion to performing a required training task,     i. e., his stated inability to perform euthanasia.  This fit the criteria for separating him for unsatisfactory performance (i. e., when it is clearly established that, in the commander’s judgment, the soldier will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training).  Therefore, the narrative reason for separation is correct.

4.  The RE code in item 27 of the applicant’s DD Form 214 is incorrect.  By regulation, he should have been given an RE code of 3, disqualified for reenlistment but the disqualification is waivable.  This would allow him to apply for a waiver of the disqualification from his local recruiting station.

5.  The Board accepts the evidence provided that shows the applicant was awarded the Army Achievement Medal.  His DD Form 214 should be amended to add that award in item 13.

6.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That the applicant’s DD Form 214 be amended to add the Army Achievement Medal in item 13 and to change the entry in item 27 to read RE-3.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__rvo___  __mkp___  __eja___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000043609	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000914	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.04	
2.	100.03	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.