MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:    

	BOARD DATE:           6 September 2001                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001054499

	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. Walter Avery, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 enlistment contract extension of two years be corrected to nine months.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he wanted to complete the legal specialist (71D) Phase II course prior to reenlisting.  Because he was not sure of when he could attend a needed class, he extended his enlistment by two years to ensure he would be a qualified legal specialist prior to reenlisting.  This would allow him to reenlist as a legal specialist and qualify for a bonus.  However, three months after extending, he had completed the legal specialist course.  He now finds he can not reenlist as a legal specialist because of the two year extension.

In support of his request, he submits a letter from his company commander who states that the applicant’s extension of two years was an inadvertent mistake due to the uncertainty of when the applicant could attend Phase II of the legal specialist course.  He believes it would be an unreasonable burden on the applicant to have to wait two years before he can obtain the benefits from reenlisting as a legal specialist. 

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

He entered the Regular Army on 5 January 1993.  He completed training as a combat engineer serving until his honorable separation on 18 January 1995 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, for Parenthood.  He was assigned Separation Code “LDG” and Reentry (RE) code RE-3.

On 9 January 1995, orders were issued releasing the applicant from active duty and assigning him to the US Army Reserve Control Group.

A DA Form 4836 (Oath of Extension of Enlistment or Reenlistment) reflects that the applicant voluntarily extended his expiration term of service (ETS) of 2 November 2000 by two years, under the authority of Table 2-1, Rule J, Army Regulation 140-111.

Army Regulation 140-111, Table 2-1, Rule J, provides, in pertinent part that soldiers with a reentry code of RE-3 require a waiver prior to reenlistment.

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.  Despite the applicant’s contentions that he completed the legal specialist course and that he extended because of the uncertainty of when he could attend phase II of the legal specialist school; the facts in the record show that he extended under a rule for those requiring a reentry code waiver.  There was no evidence offered that he completed the legal specialist course or has been awarded the military occupational specialty of legal specialist.  Additionally, the Board could not determine what legal specialist class dates were available or why the applicant could not have extended for a shorter period.  In the absence of such evidence and information the Board must conclude that the extension was administratively correct.

2.  A staff member of the Board unsuccessfully attempted to contact the applicant by telephone to obtain additional documents and information.  The currently available information does not provide a convincing argument why the extension was wrong or why it should be changed.

3.  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.

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

___mhm_  ____lls  __  ____jtm_  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001054499	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010906	
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.	100.03	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.