MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           5 August 2003                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003083666

	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. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Ronald J. Weaver		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 general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge and that his reenlistment (RE) code also be changed. 

APPLICANT STATES:  That he has provided a portion of his academic evaluation report that he received for the "Junior Enlisted Development School" course, a certificate of completion for the drivers' and sightseeing program, and a certificate of church membership from the Landover (Maryland) Memorial Baptist Church.

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

On 13 November 1988, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  He completed all training requirements and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 76V, Materiel Storage and Handling Specialist.  On 9 April 1986, he was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, with duty in his MOS. 

On 20 August 1986, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military (UCMJ), was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed on 19 August 1986.  His punishment included 14 days of extra duty and restriction.  

Between January and August 1988, the applicant was counseled numerous times for unprofessional behavior during off-duty hours; for assault and battery; for being disrespectful; for being convicted of a civil offense; for failure to go to his appointed place of duty; and for being absent from formation on several occasions.

On 16 February 1988, NJP was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed on 22 January 1988 (two specifications), 23 and 24 January 1988.  His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-4 to pay grade E-3, forfeiture of $190.00 pay per month for 1 month and 14 days of extra duty and restriction.  

On 25 February 1988, the applicant was barred from reenlistment.  He did not appeal the bar.  The basis cited for the bar was the NJP the applicant received on 16 February 1988.  

The applicant was absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit from 16-24 May 1988 and from 18-19 June 1988 due to being in civil confinement.

On 9 August 1988, the applicant's commander officially notified him that he was being recommended for discharge with a GD under the provisions of chapter 14, AR 635-200, for misconduct due to frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil or military authorities.  The applicant was advised that the bases for this recommendation were the above NJP's; the bar to reenlistment; his continuous failure to repair and his past history with civilian authorities.  He was also advised of the rights available to him. 

On 9 August 1988, the applicant consulted with legal counsel.  He was advised of the nature of the contemplated separation action and its effects.  He was also advised of the rights available to him and that he was not entitled to have an administrative separation hearing by a board of officers.  He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.   

On 11 August 1988, the applicant's commander recommended that further rehabilitative requirements be waived and that the applicant be separated with a GD under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200.  On the same date, the intermediate commander also recommended approval with a GD.

On 18 August 1988, the approval authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be separated for misconduct-pattern of misconduct with GD. 

On 25 August 1988, the applicant was separated with a GD under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct-pattern of misconduct.  He had completed 2 years, 9 months and 12 days of active military service and he had 9 days of lost time due to being in civil confinement.  He was assigned an RE code of RE-3 and 3B.

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 enlisting and processing into the RA, as well as the eligibility of prior service applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of Armed Forces RE codes, including RA RE codes.   

A code of RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service.  
RE-3B indicates that a person had lost time during his period of enlistment.
Both disqualifications are waivable.  However, the disqualification may not be waivable for certain persons who have received nonjudicial punishment, bars to reenlistment, or separations under the provisions of chapters 9, 10, 13, and 14 of Army Regulation 635-200.  Local recruiting personnel have the responsibility for determining whether an individual meets the current enlistment criteria and for processing requests for waiver.

Army Regulation 635-200 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 a serious offense, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence 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 policy states that a UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a GD under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.

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 compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.

3.  Both the type of discharge directed and the reason for discharge were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  A code of RE-3 and 3B are disqualifications that are waivable as determined by enlistment officials and the needs of the military.

5.  In view of the circumstances in this case, both the applicant's assigned RE codes and the characterization of service were, and still are, appropriate.  The applicant has submitted no evidence that shows either is in error or should be changed. 

6.  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

__lls___  __clg___  __rjw___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003083666	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030805	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19880828	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Chap 14	
DISCHARGE REASON	A60.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.6000	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.