PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  22 March 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2000048163

	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	
	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Shirley Powell		Chairperson	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		Member	
	Mr. John P. Infante		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, in effect, that his Reentry (RE) Code of 3 and 3C be changed to a more favorable code, that item 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) be corrected to show the entry “PV2” instead of the entry “PV1” and that item 4b (Pay Grade) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to show the entry “E-2” instead of the entry “E-1”.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that his RE Codes, item 4a and 4b of his 
DD Form 214 are incorrect.  He also states that he is currently serving in the
US Naval Reserve as a hospital corpsman and that he desires to enlist in the active duty Navy; however, his RE Code of 3 and 3C prevents him from entering. He further states that he would like to redeem himself from previous errors in the Army by pursuing a career in the Navy.  In support of his application he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 and a copy of his DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceeding Under Article 15, UCMJ).

4.  The applicant's military records show he enlisted on 18 August 1988 as a light weapons infantryman (11B) in the pay grade of E-3/PFC.  

5.  On 10 April 1989, the applicant was counseled for failure to repair.  On 16 November 1989, he was punished under Article 15, UCMJ, for willfully 
and unlawfully altering a public record and for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1
(one grade suspended until 15 January 1990), a forfeiture of pay, and 45 days restriction and extra duty.

6.  On 16 January 1990, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate 
him from the service under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

7.  On 16 January 1990, the commander submitted his recommendation to separate the applicant under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  The commander’s recommendation was based on the disciplinary action against the applicant and the applicant’s lack of potential to develop sufficiently, to participate satisfactorily in further training, and/or become a satisfactory soldier.

8.  On 22 January 1990, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 31 January 1990.  He had a total of 1 year,
5 months, and 13 days of creditable service.  He was issued an RE code of 
RE “3” and RE “3C”.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for the  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.

10.  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.

11.  RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.  Certain persons who have received nonjudical 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.

12.  RE-3C applies to soldiers who have completed over 4 months of service who do not meet the basic eligibility pay grade requirements of AR 601-280, chapter 2, or who have been denied reenlistment under the Qualitative Retention Process under AR 600-200, chapter 4, and who are ineligible for enlistment unless a waiver is granted.

CONCLUSIONS:

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

2.  The applicant has failed to show, through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record, that the RE codes issued to him were incorrect.

3.  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.

4.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was reduced to the pay grade of E-1 based on Article 15, UCMJ, dated 16 November 1989.  However, the reduction to E-1 was suspended one grade until 15 January 1990.  Therefore, he is entitled to correction of item 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) to show the entry “PV2” and correction of item 4b (Pay Grade) to show the entry “E-2” of his DD Form 214.

5.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records, but only as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case for the individual concerned be corrected by showing in item 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) the entry “PV2” and in item 4b (Pay Grade) the entry “E-2” of his DD Form 214.

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

BOARD VOTE:  

__sp____  ___rs____  __ji____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		____Shirley Powell__
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000048163	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010322	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19900131	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200  C, 13	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY/GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  4		
2.  1021		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.