MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           11 April 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002068270

	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. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		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 (RE) code be changed to a more favorable RE code and that his narrative reason for discharge be changed.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his RE code and narrative reason for his discharge be changed.  The applicant did not submit any documents in support of his application.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 7 March 2001 for a period of three years.  He was assigned to Fort Benning, Georgia, for infantry training.

On 29 March 2001, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment for disobeying a lawful order from a first sergeant (1SG).  His punishment consisted of forfeiture of $225.00, extra duty for 14 days, and restriction to the company for 14 days.

On 3 April 2001, the applicant’s unit commander notified him of pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12(c) for misconduct – commission of a serious offense.  The commander cited the reason for his proposed action as the applicant’s refusal to train; failure to follow orders; and lack of motivation, respect, and discipline to become a quality soldier. 

The applicant declined the opportunity to consult with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  

On 25 April 2001, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged in an entry level status with characterization of service as uncharacterized. 

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 3 May 2001 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12(c) for misconduct – commission of a serious offense.  He had completed 1 month and 27 days of creditable service and was issued a RE code of RE-3.

Prior to his discharge, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and a separation medical examination and was found fit for separation with a physical profile of 111111. 

On 6 February 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request to change the narrative reason for his discharge.

Army Regulation 635-200, currently in effect, sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14, establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, or absences without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  

Army regulations state that a soldier is in an entry level status if the soldier has not completed more than 180 days of creditable continuous active duty prior to the initiation of separation action.

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.

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 applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12(c), for misconduct – commission of a serious offense. 

2.  The applicant waived his right to consult with legal counsel, acknowledged that he understood the effects of his uncharacterized discharge and declined to submit statements in his own behalf.

3.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

4.  The type of discharge directed and the narrative reason for his discharge were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  

5.  He was assigned an RE code of RE-3 in accordance with regulations then in effect. 

6.  There is no basis for removal of the RE code from the applicant's record; however, if the applicant desires to reenter the Army, the Board recommends that he contact his local recruiter to determine if he is eligible to apply for a waiver of his RE code under current enlistment criteria.

7.  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.

8.  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

MKP_____  EJA_____  RTD_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002068270	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020411	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UNCHAR	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	20010503	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chapter 14	
DISCHARGE REASON	Misconduct	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Chun	
ISSUES         1.	144.0000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.