MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF: 

	BOARD DATE:             26 July 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2001052578

	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. Antoinette E. Farley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Eric N. Andersen		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 , correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) reentry eligibility (RE) code 3, which would allow reenlistment.  In effect, this constitutes a request for removal or waiver of those disqualifications, which preclude reenlistment.

APPLICANT STATES:  In essence, that his reenlistment code should be changed. He submits no additional information in support of his claim other than his military record.

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

The applicant was born on 6 October 1976, and completed 12 years of formal education.  He then enlisted in the Regular Army at the age of 19, on 
15 April 1996 for 3 years.  

The applicant departed his unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status on two separate occasions.  The first period was from 1 – 30 May 1996, where he was apprehended and returned to Fort Benning, Georgia.  On 1 June 1996, he was again listed as being AWOL while in a trainee station at Fort Benning.  On 26 June 1996, he surrendered to military authorities at Fort Knox, Kentucky and was held by the Personnel Control Facility in confinement. 

On 27 June 1996, he was charged with two violations of Article 86, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being AWOL from 1 to 31 May 1996 and from 1 to
26 June 1996.

On the same day, after consulting with legal counsel the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trail by court-martial.  The applicant also acknowledged that by submitting the request for discharge he was admitting his guilt of the charges that were preferred against him.  The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits.  He was afforded the opportunity to submit a statement in his own behalf, but declined to do so.  The unit commander recommended he be approved for an uncharacterized discharge.  The separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and the applicant was placed in a excess leave status.  On 8 August 1996, the separation authority approved his separation and directed that the applicant be discharged in an entry level status. 

On 14 November 1996, he was discharged with an uncharacterized discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provision of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  He had completed 5 months and 5 days of active service and had 53 days lost time during two periods of AWOL.  He never completed his military training and was still in a “trainee” status at the time of his discharge.  He was assigned a reenlistment code of RE-3. 

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  (Army policy states that although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a uncharacterized discharge is normally considered appropriate.)

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 and 3C indicate that the applicant would need a waiver from a recruiting official to reenlist.

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 person with bars to reenlistment, and those discharged under the provisions of chapters 9, 10, 13, and 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 are assigned a RE-3.

On 31 January 2001 the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for a upgrade. 

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, in this case, has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the requirement.

2.  The applicant was discharged and assigned a reentry code in accordance with the regulation then in effect. 

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 provided all qualifications are met.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.  The assigned RE code was and still is appropriate.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis to grant 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__  ___HOF _  __ENA __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001052578	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2001/07/26	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UNCHAR	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1996/11/14	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	A100.03	
2.	A123.00	
3.	A01.00	
4.	A93.01	
5.		
6.