MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           25 January 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000047719

	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. Michael L. Engle		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		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, in effect, his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be corrected.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he has served in the Army Reserve for 10 years, currently holds the rank of staff sergeant, and has achieved all of the unit standards.  He needs his RE code corrected.  In support of his application, he provides a copy of his Report of Separation and Record of Service in the Army National Guard of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (NGB Form 22) for the period from 14 June 1991 through 1 October 1994.

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

He enlisted in the Army on 1 February 1984 for 3 years.  He successfully completed his initial training and was assigned to the Federal Republic of Germany for duty as a tactical wire operations specialist (36K).  He attained the rank of specialist four on 1 March 1986.

On 7 April 1987 the applicant reenlisted in the Army, in pay grade E-4, for another 3 years.  He was retrained and awarded military occupational specialty 76C (Equipment Records and Parts Specialist).

On 11 October 1988 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for disobeying a lawful order and for wrongfully using provoking language.  His punishment included a reduction to pay grade E-3 and 14 days extra duty.  His appeal was denied.

On 28 February 1989, he again received NJP under the provisions of Article     15, UCMJ, for being absent without leave from 13 to 15 February 1989 and for disobeying a lawful order.   His punishment included a reduction to pay grade    E-2, a forfeiture of $175.00 and 14 days extra duty.  He did not request an appeal of the punishment.

During the period from December 1987 through February 1989, the applicant received numerous counselings for a variety of reasons to include: disrespect to a senior noncommissioned officer, failure to meet uniform and appearance standards, being late for formation, writing bad checks, failure to repair, failure to obey a lawful order, using provoking language, and for domestic problems with his family.

On 8 March 1989 the applicant’s commander advised him that he was recommending him for separation based on his poor performance and apathetic attitude.  On 10 March 1989, after being advised by counsel of his rights, the applicant elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  He indicated that he understood that he would be ineligible to apply for enlistment in the Army for a period of 2 years after discharge.

On 10 March 1989 the commander initiated a recommendation to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.

On 27 March 1989 the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 13 April 1989.  He had completed 5 years, 2 months and 11 days of creditable active service and had 2 days of lost time.  The applicant’s separation document (DD Form 214) shows his RE codes as 3, 3B and 3C.  

NGB Form 22, effective 1 October 1994, shows that the applicant enlisted in the ARNG of Puerto Rico on 14 June 1991, served for 3 years, 3 months and         18 days and was separated with a remaining Reserve obligation until 14 June 1997.

Army Regulation 601-210 prescribes eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the 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 Army Regulation 635-200.

RE-3B indicates that a person had lost time during his last enlistment.

RE-3C applies to persons who have completed more than 4 months service who do not meet the basic eligibility pay grade requirements of the Army Regulation 601-280, chapter 2, or who have been denied reenlistment under the Qualitative Retention Process according to Army Regulation 601-280, chapter 10.

That regulation further provides that RE codes may only be changed if they are determined to be administratively incorrect.  Applicants who have correct RE codes will be processed for a waiver at their request if otherwise qualified and a waiver is authorized.  No requirement to change an RE code exists to qualify for enlistment.

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’s administrative discharge from the RA was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.

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

3.  The separation authority, RE codes and narrative reason for separation used in the applicant’s case are correct and were applied in accordance with the applicable regulations.

4.  The applicant’s subsequent service in the ARNG of Puerto Rico, while commendable, does not constitute authority or mitigation to change the applicant’s previous RE code.

5.  The applicant’s contention that his good service for the last 10 years in the Army Reserve should have a bearing on his case is without merit.  The RE code properly reflects the applicant’s reentry eligibility at the time of his separation.

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

___JH___  ___LE___  __KAH___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000047719	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010125	
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.	110.02                             	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.