MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            14 September 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2000044866

	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. Beverly A. Young		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 general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable.  He also requests that his Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) Code be upgraded so he can return to active duty.

APPLICANT STATES:  That it was not explained to him in full detail that with a general discharge he would not be eligible for his GI Bill money when he returned to school.  

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

The applicant entered active duty on 4 December 1989 and successfully completed basic and advanced individual training as a patriot missile crewmember. 

Evidence of record shows that during the period August 1990 to December 1990, the applicant received numerous adverse counseling statements for failing to maintain barracks standards, bearing and appearance, failing a PT test, failing to maintain physical security, failing to follow instruction, failing to be in the appointed place of duty, and disobeying a direct order.  

On 18 January 1991, the applicant was notified of proposed discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance based on his lack of military bearing and appearance, his continued substandard performance, and his inability to improve his performance.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel and waived his right to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

The applicant underwent a separation mental status evaluation and medical examination and was found qualified for separation with a physical profile of 111111.  

On 11 February 1991, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative requirements, approved the recommendation for separation and directed issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 25 February 1991 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  He had 1 year, 2 months and 22 days of creditable service and issued a RE Code of RE-3.

On 16 June 2000, the applicant requested that the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgrade his discharge to honorable.  On 26 July 2000, the Army Discharge Review Board, by unanimous vote, denied the applicant's request for upgrade of his discharge.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of this regulation, in effect at the time, provides for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when in the commander’s judgment the individual will not become a satisfactory soldier; retention will have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order and morale; the service member will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation will continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely.  Service of soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

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, including RA RE codes.  The regulation states that RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.

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 discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

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.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  The applicant was separated and assigned a reentry code in accordance with regulations then in effect.

5.  The applicant has failed to show, through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record that the RE Code issued to him was incorrect.

6.  There is no basis for removal of the RE code from the applicant's record. The disqualification upon which the code was based, however, can be waived for reenlistment purposes. 

7.  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

8.  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	AR2000044866	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	YYYYMMDD	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0000	
2.	100.0000	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.