MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            12 DECEMER 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002071565

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Roger W. Able 		Chairperson	
	Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		Member	
	Mr. Bernard P. Ingold		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 so he "can use [the] G.I. Bill."

APPLICANT STATES:  He recently had the characterization of his service upgraded from under honorable conditions to honorable, but his "re-entry code was not changed."  He notes that he is currently enrolled in college and needs access to educational benefits from the Veterans Administration in order to avoid "drowning under a mountain of debt" when he graduates.  He states, in effect, that he acknowledges that his service was not entirely honorable, that he made some mistakes for which he accepts responsibility, and that he has now changed and will continue to make changes with the assistance of the Veterans Administration educational benefits.  He submits no evidence in support of his request beyond his self-authored statement.

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

He entered active duty on 6 July 1989, completed training, and served 16 months in Korea prior to being assigned to Fort Drum, New York.  By July 1990 he had been promoted to pay grade E-3.

In October 1991 the applicant received a "summarized Article 15 for disobeying a lawful order from a noncommissioned officer, failing to be at his appointed place of duty and making a false official statement to a senior noncommissioned officer."  Between November 1991 and January 1992 the applicant was counseled several times for his unsatisfactory performance, failing to be at his place of duty, and reporting late for duty.

On 30 January 1992 the applicant's unit commander notified the applicant he was initiating action to administratively separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b for "patterns of misconduct."  The commander sighted the applicant's apathetic attitude, summarized Article 15, and gross disregard for rules and regulations as the basis for his recommendation.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation, consulted with counsel and waived his attendant rights.  

The recommendation was approved and on 2 March 1992 the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions.  The authority for his separation was recorded on his separation report as "AR 635-200, CHAPTER 14, PARA 14-12B."  The narrative reason for his separation was recorded as "MISCONDUCT-PATTERNS OF MISCONDUCT."  His "reentry code" was recorded as "RE-3." The applicant was discharged in pay grade E-3 and had 2 years, 7 months, and 27 days of Active Federal Service.

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, then in effect, provided for the administrative separation of soldiers with a pattern of misconduct consisting of discreditable involvement with civil or military authorities, or conduct which was prejudicial to good order and discipline.

Army Regulation 601-210 states that Reentry Eligibility (RE) codes are used for administrative purposes only.  They are not considered derogatory in nature and are simply codes used for identification of an enlistment processing procedure.  RE-3 applies to soldiers who were not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at the time of separation.  Soldiers separated in pay grade 
E-3, who had more than 2 years of Active Federal Service, and soldiers involuntarily separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, were among soldiers assigned a Reentry Eligibility code of 3.

In November 2001 the Army Discharge Review Board voted to upgrade the characterization of the applicant's discharge to honorable and to change the reason of his discharge from "Misconduct-Patterns of Misconduct" to simply "Misconduct," which was in keeping with the current provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b.  His Reentry Eligibility code did not change.

The educational assistance program the applicant would have been eligible for at the time of his enlistment was known as the Montgomery GI Bill-Active Duty (MGIB).  The program provides up to 36 months of education benefits, providing the individual did not decline the MGIB upon entry into active duty.  In addition to several other requirements, a "fully honorable" discharge was required to receive benefits.  Generally, benefits are payable for 10 years following release from active duty.  An individual's Reentry Eligibility code has no bearing on entitlements or eligibility.

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 confirms that the applicant’s Reentry Eligibility code was assigned based on the fact that he was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14 and because he was in pay grade E-3 with more than 2 years of service at the time of separation.  Notwithstanding the fact that the Army Discharge Review Board upgraded the character of his service, the applicant’s Reentry Eligibility code was appropriate considering the basis for his separation.  The Board finds no basis to correct the existing code.  

2.  Additionally, the Board notes that the applicant's Reentry Eligibility code has no bearing on his eligibility for educational benefits administered by the Veterans Administration.  

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 that 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

__RWA__  __KYF __  __BPI___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002071565	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20021212	
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.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.