MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           14 May 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002069751

	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. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Chairperson	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr.		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 of RE-4 be changed to a more favorable RE code.

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant has offered no argument or explanation with his application to support his request.

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

The applicant entered the Army on 17 July 1979 and was honorably discharged on 17 January 1982.  He immediately reenlisted on 18 January 1982, for a period of 6 years.  His military occupational specialty (MOS) was 16D (Hawk Missile Crewman). 

The applicant’s record confirms that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was specialist and that he earned the following awards during his active duty tenure: Army Service Ribbon; Good Conduct Medal (2nd Award); Overseas Service Ribbon; Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar; and Expert Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar.

On 18 December 1985, the applicant’s unit commander initiated a bar to reenlistment against him, citing his inability to demonstrate financial responsibility, numerous counseling for bad check writing, total disregard for adhering to command policy not to write bad checks, and the non-judicial punishment (NJP) for driving a vehicle while drunk.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the bar to reenlistment and acknowledged his understanding of the basis for the action.  On 5 February 1986, the bar to reenlistment was approved by the appropriate authority.

On 14 July 1987, the applicant voluntarily requested separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 16-5b, based on his perception that he could not overcome the basis for the bar.  He acknowledged that if his request for separation was approved, recoupment of unearned portions of any enlistment or reenlistment bonus was required, and that once separated he would not be permitted to reenlist at a later date.

The applicant’s separation request was approved by the separation authority, who directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5b, based on the locally imposed bar to reenlistment.  On 29 July 1987, the applicant was honorably discharged accordingly after completing a total of 8 years and 23 days of active military service.  

The DD Form 214 issued to and authenticated by the applicant on the date of his separation, confirms that the authority for his discharge was paragraph 5-16b, Army Regulation 635-200 and the reason for his separation was a locally imposed bar to reenlistment.  This document also verifies that based on the authority and reason for his discharge, the applicant was assigned a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of KGF and a RE code of RE-4.

Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.  The SPD code of KGF was the appropriate code for the applicant based on the guidance provided in this regulation for soldiers separating under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, paragraph 16-5b, by reason of a locally imposed bar to reenlistment.  Additionally, Table 2-3 (SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table), Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), establishes RE-4 as the proper reentry code to assign to soldiers separated for this reason.

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 evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations and the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

2.  The Board finds that the RE-4 code assigned the applicant was appropriate, based on the authority and reason for his discharge and the basis for this
RE code assignment has not changed.  

3.  The records shows that the applicant voluntarily requested separation based on his perception that he could not overcome the locally imposed bar to reenlistment, and he acknowledged that he understood that if his request were approved, he would not be permitted to reenlist in the Army at a later date.  Although, he may now feel that the RE-4 code assigned to him was inappropriate, this does not provide a sufficient basis for granting the requested relief.

4.  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.

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

__MHM__  __KAN__  __DPH__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002069751	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/05/14	
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.	100.0300	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.