MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            2 July 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002068758

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		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, that his Reentry (RE) Code be changed to a more favorable code that will allow him to enlist again.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he had an allergic reaction to medication at the time and was discharged for a condition (flat feet) that existed prior to entry into service (EPTS).  However, he has been examined by officials at the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) who opine that he could fulfill his military obligations.  In support of his application, he submits a letter from the DVA, a copy of his report of separation (DD Form 214), a copy of his Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) Proceedings (DA Form 3947), a copy of his Physical Profile (DA Form 3349), and copies of some medical documents.

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

He enlisted on 30 April 1999 for a period of 4 years, training as an infantryman and a cash enlistment bonus.  He served until 20 August 1999, when he was discharged at Fort Benning, Georgia, for failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph   5-11.  He had served 3 months and 21 days of total active service and his service was uncharacterized.  He was issued a RE Code of “3”. 

The applicant again enlisted on 22 August 2001, for a period of 4 years, training as an infantryman and a cash enlistment bonus.  He was transferred to Fort Benning and on 21 September 2001 and was issued a permanent physical profile for Pes Planus – chronic flat feet with pain.  

On 10 October 2001, the applicant was evaluated by a MEB which determined that he had flat feet and that the condition EPTS.  The MEB recommended that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5 and the Expeditious Discharge Program.  The applicant indicated that he did not desire to continue on active duty and that he concurred with the findings of the MEB.  The findings and recommendations were approved on 12 October 2001.

Accordingly, he was discharged on 30 October 2001, with his service uncharacterized, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, due to a disability that EPTS – Medical Board.  He had served 2 months and 9 days of active service and was given a RE Code of “3”.

The letter from the DVA is dated 26 October 2001, 4 days prior to his discharge.  The examining physician opined that the applicant suffered from mild flat feet bilaterally and that if he is asymptomatic, he should not have any problems fulfilling his military obligations.

Army Regulation 635-200 serves as the authority for enlisted separations and discharges.  Chapter 5 of that regulation provides for the separation of personnel who did not meet procurement medical fitness standards.  It states, in pertinent part, that soldiers who were not medically qualified under procurement medical fitness standards when accepted for enlistment, or who became medically disqualified under these standards prior to entry on active duty, will be separated. Medical proceedings, regardless of the date completed, must establish that a medical condition was identified by appropriate medical authority within 6 months of the soldier’s entry on active duty.  Personnel in an entry-level status will not have their service characterized.

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 processing into the Regular Army and the USAR.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of armed forces 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 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 16 of Army Regulation 635-200.  A waiting period of 2 years from separation is required before a waiver may be submitted.

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.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no indication of any violations of the applicant’s rights.

3.  The applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation        635-200, chapter 5; therefore; he was properly issued an RE Code of “3” in accordance with the applicable regulations.

4.  The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that he was issued the wrong RE Code at the time of his separation.
5.  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

__kak ___  ___ao___  __rjw ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002068758	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/07/02	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  4	100.0300/RE CODE	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.