MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           16 August 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001059015

	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. Beverly A. Young		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. June Hajjar		Chairperson	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		Member	
	Mr. Thomas Baxter		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 reentry eligibility (RE) code be changed from RE-3C to a more favorable RE code.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was young and immature and that his immaturity led him to strike another soldier.  He further states that he regrets what he did and he feels that he should have a second chance.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 January 1989 for a period of four years.  He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training and was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, as a materiel storage and handling specialist.  He was advanced to private first class on 1 September 1989.

The applicant received numerous adverse counseling statements on various occasions between April 1989 and December 1989 for being absent from formation, for failing to report to his place of duty, for disobeying an order, for conduct unbecoming a soldier, and for violating unit visitation policies.

On 23 March 1990, the applicant was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for assault, for being disrespectful in language, and for wrongfully using provoking words towards a corporal.  He was reduced to private E-2, to forfeit $189.00 pay, to perform extra duties for 14 days and to be restricted for 14 days.

The applicant also received adverse counseling statements between March 1990 and July 1990 for failing to report, for being disrespectful to an noncommissioned officer and insubordination, for unsatisfactory performance and misconduct, for disobeying a lawful order, for disrespecting an officer, and for failing to follow instructions.

On 24 May 1990, he was punished again under Article 15, UCMJ for being absent from his unit and for being disrespectful in language towards a sergeant first class.  He was reduced to private E-1 and to perform extra duty for 14 days.

On 20 August 1990, the applicant’s unit commander notified him of pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12(b) for misconduct – pattern of misconduct.  The unit commander requested that the rehabilitative transfer requirements be waived.  

On 20 August 1990, the applicant acknowledged the notification of the pending separation action.  On 5 September 1990, he consulted with legal counsel and submitted a statement in his own behalf.  He underwent a mental status evaluation and a separation medical examination and was found fit for separation with a physical profile of 111111. 
The separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12(b) for misconduct – pattern of misconduct with issuance of a General Under Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.  

The applicant was discharged on 16 October 1990 in pay grade E-1.  He had 1 year, 9 months and 6 days of creditable service.  His DD Form 214 shows he was issued RE codes RE-3 and RE-3C.

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 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 persons with bars to reenlistment, and those discharged under the provisions of chapters 9, 10, 13, and 14 of Army Regulation 635-200.

RE-3C applies to persons separated from their last period of service who do not meet the reentry grade and service criteria of Army Regulation 601-210.  

Table 3-1, Rule H of Army Regulation 601-210 further provides, in effect, that soldiers with prior military service who were last separated in pay grade E-1 with more than 6 months total active service required a waiver for enlistment in the Regular Army and an RE code of 3C.  

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.  The Board considered the applicant’s contentions that he was young and immature at the time and that he should have a second chance.  However, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12(b), for misconduct – pattern of misconduct and was assigned an  RE code of RE-3 in accordance with regulations then in effect and with no indication of procedural errors which would jeopardize his rights.

2.  The applicant was separated in pay grade E-1 with more than 6 months total active service and was issued an RE code of RE-3C.

3.  The RE code of 3C reflects that the applicant was not eligible for reenlistment without a waiver because he was separated in pay grade E-1 with more than 6 months total active service.

4.  Therefore, there is no regulatory basis for amending the applicant’s RE code of RE-3C.  The disqualification upon which the code was based, however, can be waived for reenlistment purposes. 

5.  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.

6.  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

JH______  JTM____  TB______  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001059015	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20010816	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19901016	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,paragraph14-12b	
DISCHARGE REASON	Misconduct – Pattern of Misconduct	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.0300	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.