MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           17 September 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   A2002073593

	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. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III		Member	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		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 favorable RE code; and that he be provided back pay based on his not being placed in the Ready Reserve upon his release from active duty (REFRAD). 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was told by his battalion commander that he would be transferred to the Ready Reserve upon his REFRAD.  He contends that because this did not occur, he should be compensated because it has caused him hardship and resulted in his losing benefits.  In support of his application, he submits copies of the following documents: separation document (DD Form 214); Enlistment/Reenlistment Document (DA Form 4/1and 4/2); Certificate of Training; Honorable Discharge Certificate; US Marine Corps Junior Reserve Officers Training Corps Certificate of Training; and two separation document corrections (DD Forms 215), dated 18 May 1989 and 20 November 2001.

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

On 3 March 1988, the applicant entered the Regular Army for 3 years.  His record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition, and it confirms that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private first class/E-3.

The applicant completed basic combat training and was assigned to Fort Sam Houston, Texas, to attend advanced individual training (AIT) in military occupational specialty (MOS) 91A (Medical Specialist).  However, he failed to complete the academic requirements to be awarded MOS 91A and was transferred to Fort Lee, Virginia, to attend AIT in MOS 76P (Material Control and Accounting Specialist).  While attending AIT for MOS 76P the applicant was counseled on three separate occasions for failing examinations and failure to meet course standards. 

On 8 November 1988, the applicant’s unit commander notified him that separation action was being initiated against him under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for unsatisfactorily performance.  The reasons cited for the action were the applicant’s difficulty in comprehending the MOS 76P course requirements, his substandard academic performance, his lack of motivation, and his previous failure of the MOS 91A AIT course. 

The applicant consulted counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action.  Subsequent to counseling, the applicant elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.  In his statement, he commented that his failure to achieve course standards for both MOS 91A and MOS 76P was due to personal problems.  In addition, he stated that if given another chance, he would achieve course standards and become a successful soldier. 

The appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation with an HD, and directed that he be placed in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR).  However, Orders Number 202-13, issued by Headquarters, US Army Quartermaster Center and Fort Lee, Fort Lee, Virginia, directed that the applicant be discharged from the Regular Army on 21 October 1988.  Transfer of the applicant to the IRR was not authorized in these orders.  On 21 October 1988, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  At the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 7 months and 19 days of active military service.  

The DD Form 214 issued to him on the date of his separation confirms that he was discharged from the Regular Army, without transfer to the IRR and that he was assigned a RE code of RE-3.  The applicant authenticated the separation document with his signature, thereby confirming that the information contained therein was correct at that time, and there is no indication that he objected to not being transferred to the IRR at the time.  

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 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.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory performance, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander’s judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.

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 notes the applicant’s contention that he should be compensated because he was not properly placed in the IRR at the time of his discharge, which has caused him hardship and cost him benefits.  However, the Board finds no evidence of record or independent evidence to support these claims.

2.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant’s battalion commander recommended that he be placed in the IRR.  However, Orders Number 
202-13, issued by Headquarters, US Army Quartermaster Center and Fort Lee, Fort Lee, Virginia, confirm that the applicant’s discharge was directed and the 
DD Form 214 issued to the applicant upon his separation confirms that he was discharged from the Regular Army on 21 October 1988, and that he was not transferred to the IRR.  

3.  The evidence of record also confirms that the applicant authenticated his 
DD Form 214 with his signature on the date of his separation, thereby verifying that the information contained therein was correct at the time.  Further, there is no indication that he ever questioned or objected to the fact that he was being discharged and not being transferred to the IRR at that time or at anytime subsequent to his discharge until now.  Therefore, the Board finds no injustice related to the applicant’s discharge, or any evidentiary basis that would warrant this requested relief. 

4.  The Board also notes the applicant’s contention that his RE-3 code should be upgraded.  However, it also finds no basis for this requested relief.  The applicant’s separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance, and the assignment of the RE-3 code were accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations.  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.  

5.  The applicant has failed to show, through the evidence he submitted with his application or the evidence of record that the RE code issued to him was incorrect, does not accurately reflect his overall record of service, and reenlistment eligibility at the time of his separation.  

6.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the Board finds the RE code of 
RE-3 that was issued to the applicant at the time of his separation from the Army was appropriately assigned and the basis for this assignment has not changed.  Thus, the Board concludes that RE code of RE-3 is still appropriate and there is no basis for changing it at this time.

7.  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

__EJA__  __TBR___  ___KAH__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	A2002073593	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2002/09/17	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19880719	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200 	
DISCHARGE REASON	Unsatisfactory Performance	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.0300	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.