MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  15 February 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000047394

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		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 locally imposed bar to reenlistment be removed and that his Reentry (RE) Code 3 be changed to a more favorable code.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was informed that his bar to reenlistment would be removed upon his request after one year, and that this would not effect him for the rest of his life.  In support of his application he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he enlisted on 10 August 1989 as an armor crewman.

On 19 January 1993, he was punished under Article 15, (UCMJ), for operating a vehicle while intoxicated.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3, a forfeiture of pay, and 45 days restriction and extra duty.

The applicant was barred from reenlistment on 5 February 1993 for the aforementioned offense.

The applicant’s bar to reenlistment was reviewed by his commander on 11 March 1993, 30 days prior to his discharge with the recommendation that the applicant’s bar remain in effect.

The applicant submitted a request to be discharged prior to his expiration of term of service (ETS) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5, due to his inability to overcome a locally imposed bar to reenlistment. 
The appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request on 17 March 1993.

On 24 March 1993, the battalion commander recommended that the applicant’s bar to reenlistment remain in effect.

The applicant was discharged on 5 April 1993 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5(b) due to a locally imposed bar to reenlistment.  He was furnished an Honorable Discharge Certificate.  He had completed 3 years, 7 months, and 26 days of creditable service and was issued an RE code of “3”.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 16 covers discharges caused by changes in service obligation.  Paragraph 16-5(b) applies to personnel who were denied reenlistment and provided that if they received a locally imposed bar to reenlistment, and were unable to overcome the bar, they may apply for
immediate separation.

Paragraph 6-5, of Army Regulation 601-280 states, in pertinent part, that approved bars to reenlistment will be reviewed by the proper unit commander at least 6 months after the date of approval, and 30 days before the soldiers’ scheduled departure from the unit, or separation from the service.

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.

RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.  Certain persons who have received nonjudicial
punishment are so disqualified, as are persons with bars to reenlistment, and those discharged under the provisions of chapter 9, 10, 13, 14, and 16 of Army Regulation 635-200.

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 was properly barred from reenlistment for operating a vehicle while intoxicated. 

2.  The locally imposed bar to reenlist was imposed in compliance with 
applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend
to jeopardize his rights.

3.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention; however, the applicant has failed to provide evidence to show that his bar to reenlistment should be removed.

4.  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.  

5.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

6.  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 or unjust.

7.  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. 

8.  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.

9.  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

__fe___  __mm______  __mp___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000047394	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010215	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19930405	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200,  C, 16-5b	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  4		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.