MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            6 February 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000048424

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		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:  In effect, that his Reentry (RE) Code be changed to a more favorable code, that his bar to reenlistment be lifted and that the Narrative Reason for Separation be changed to a less derogatory reason. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was accused, punished by nonjudicial punishment, served his time and paid his debt to the military and society.  He goes on to state that the bar to reenlistment serves as an extended punishment and he is trying to correct a wrong and make it right.  He also states that the only way he can move forward in life is to ask for forgiveness and to try and move towards a positive future.  He has delayed his request to allow him time to build a respectful reputation and is willing to provide character witnesses in his own behalf.

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

He enlisted on 6 January 1987 for a period of 3 years and 14 weeks.  He successfully completed his training and remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments.  His last reenlistment was on 17 September 1991 for a period of 4 years.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 1 April 1992. 

On 16 November 1992, while stationed in Germany, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for the indecent assault on a female.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-4, a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.

On 12 February 1993, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for breaking restriction.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3, a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction. 

On 2 March 1993 the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to bar the applicant from reenlistment based on his record of nonjudicial punishment.  The applicant acknowledged the commander’s notification and elected not to submit matters in his own behalf.  The appropriate authority approved the bar to reenlistment on 8 March 1993 and the applicant acknowledged on 18 March 1993 that he would not appeal the bar to reenlistment.

On 22 March 1993 the applicant submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5b, due to his perceiving that he could not overcome the basis that served as a bar to reenlistment.  The appropriate authority approved the request and directed that he not be transferred to the United States Army Reserve (USAR).  

Accordingly, he was honorably discharged in the pay grade of E-3 on 18 May 1993, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5b, due to a locally imposed bar to reenlistment.  He had served 6 years, 4 months and 13 days of total active service and was issued a RE Code of “3”.

Army Regulation 635-200 serves as the authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  It states, in pertinent part, in paragraph 16-5b, that soldiers who perceive that they are unable to overcome a locally imposed bar to reenlistment may request immediate separation and that their service will normally be characterized as honorable.

Army Regulation 601-210 provides the criteria for awarding RE Codes to personnel separating from the service.  It provides, in pertinent part, that a RE Code of “3” will be issued to personnel who are not considered fully qualified for reentry or continued service at the time of separation, but that the disqualification is waivable.  Personnel who are issued a RE Code of “3” are ineligible for subsequent enlistment unless a waiver is granted by the appropriate authority.  Recruiting personnel serve as the initial point of contact to obtain such waivers.

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.  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.

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no indication of any violations of his rights.  Accordingly, he was properly separated and was issued the proper narrative reason for separation and RE Code based on a locally imposed bar to reenlistment.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief in his case.  It should be noted however that his RE Code is waivable and he is not precluded from applying for such a waiver should he desire to enlist.

4.  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 __  ___wtm__  __tl  ____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000048424	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/02/06	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  4	100.0300/RE CODE	
2.  7	100.0600/BAR	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.