MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           15 February 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000049907

	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	
	Mrs. Nancy Amos		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 reenlistment (RE) code be changed to RE 1 or RE 2.

APPLICANT STATES:  That the separation code listed on his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214, is KGF.  This code means that he was either overweight or was less than a productive soldier.  He is not now nor had he ever been either.  A change in his RE code will enable him to become a National Guard recruiter, a job for which he is eminently qualified and needed.

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

He was inducted into the Army on 29 November 1966.  He was awarded primary military occupational specialty (MOS) OOE (Recruiter) in 1974.  He was promoted to Sergeant First Class, E-7 on 26 April 1978.  He last reenlisted on   28 February 1979 for 4 years.  

Around February 1982, the applicant was assigned to the Oklahoma City District Recruiting Command when he was reclassified into primary MOS 16R (Air Defense Artillery Short Range Gunnery Crewman) and OOE was redesignated his secondary MOS.  Around March 1982, he was placed on assignment instructions to Germany in MOS 16R with a report month of August 1982.  He was required to have 36 months remaining in service as of 1 August 1982.  His expiration term of service (ETS) was 27 February 1983.  On or about 23 March 1982, he was counseled of the action required to satisfy the length-of-service requirement incident to his reassignment and he refused to extend or reenlist to comply with the assignment.  Due to the fact he had less than 12 months until his ETS, he could not receive a permanent change of station to an installation compatible with his new MOS.  However, he had been suspended from his recruiting duties and so could not perform duties as a recruiter.

On 27 April 1982, the Department of the Army (DA) Retention/Separation office informed the SWRRC (acronym unknown) Reenlistment Noncommissioned Officer that a request for early separation on the part of the applicant would not normally fall within the intent of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-27b.  However, due to the Army’s end-strength posture, the request would receive favorable consideration.  On 28 April 1982, the applicant requested early separation due to the inability to overcome a locally imposed bar to reenlistment. An approving endorsement noted that the request did not fall within the literal context of the cited paragraph; however, refusal to proceed on permanent change of station orders and subsequent declination of continued service produced the same effect.  The Military Personnel Center approved his request
as an exception to policy and stated that his DD Form 214 would be coded RE-4.

On 12 August 1982, the applicant was discharged with a separation code of KGF and a RE code of 3A/4.  On 22 December 1982, his DD Form 214 was corrected to show his RE code as 4.

Army Regulation 635-200 governs the separation of enlisted personnel.  At the time, paragraph 5-27 governed the early separation of personnel who perceived they would be unable to overcome a Headquarters, DA imposed or a locally imposed bar to reenlistment.  

Army Regulation 635-5-1 prescribes the specific authorities, the reasons for separation of members from active military service, and the separation program designators (SPD) to be used for these stated reasons.  The version dated         1 September 1979, in effect at the time, provided that SPD KGF would be used to designate the reason for separation of voluntary discharge – Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-27b, locally imposed bar to reenlistment.  (Code JBK would be used when the member was involuntarily discharged upon his ETS and was ineligible to reenlist).

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 U.S. 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-4 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service and the disqualification is not 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.  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.  There is no Government error in this case.  SPD KGF did not mean the applicant was overweight.  It is true that the SPD KGF would have normally meant that he was an unproductive soldier which, in a way, he was as he declined to extend or reenlist to accept his overseas assignment and therefore was frozen at a duty station where he could not be utilized.  Headquarters, DA recognized this when they approved his request for early separation as an exception to policy.  SPD KGF and RE 4 were and still are the appropriate codes to be used in this case. 

3.  Considering the circumstances in this case, the applicant should consider requesting the National Guard grant an exception to policy in order to obtain the relief requested.

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

__fne___  __mhm___  __mkp___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000049907	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20010215	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.03	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.