RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           4 December 2003                       
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003085945

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Antoinette Farley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. Allen L. Raub		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth SW. Lapin		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:  

1.  The applicant requests change of his reentry eligibility (RE) code from RE-4 to 
RE-3.

2.  The applicant states that he received an honorable discharge with a code of RE-4.  This makes him unable to enlist in the Reserves or the National Guard.  He states that he would like to serve his country and to do so he needs his RE- code changed. 

3.  The applicant provides no attachments or evidence.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an error and/or injustice which occurred on 29 March 1996.  The application submitted in this case is dated 9 February 2003.  

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant enlisted and entered active duty on 16 July 1985.  He reenlisted on 31 March 1988 and again on 20 April 1992.  

4.  On 4 October 1994, the applicant extended his reenlistment for a period of 13 months (making his new ETS 19 May 1997) in order to meet the service remaining requirement (SRR) for assignment to Alaska.  

5.  By memorandum dated 8 September 1995, the applicant was notified that he would be barred from reenlistment under the Department of the Army Qualitative Management Program (QMP).  The documents cited as contributing to his denial of reenlistment reflected deficiencies and/or weaknesses in the areas of discipline, physical fitness and weight control.  On 13 September 1994, he received a memorandum of reprimand, which also contained negative comments about his personal conduct.

6.  On 29 January 1996, the applicant elected not to submit an appeal of his bar to reenlistment.  He stated that he understood that he would be separated within 90 days and once separated he would not be permitted to reenlist.

7.  On 29 March 1996, the applicant was separated with an honorable discharge, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8, reduction in force.  He had 10 years, 8 months and 14 days of creditable service and no lost time.  The highest pay grade he held was E-6.  He was given a Separation Program Designator code (SPD) of JCC and an RE code of RE-4.

8.  Chapter 10 of Army Regulation 601-280, then in effect, set forth policy and prescribed procedures for denying reenlistment under the QMP.  This program is based on the premise that reenlistment is a privilege for those whose performance, conduct, attitude, and potential for advancement meet Army standards.  It is designed to (1) enhance the quality of the career enlisted force, (2) selectively retain the best qualified soldiers to 30 years of active duty, (3) deny reenlistment to nonprogressive and nonproductive soldiers, and (4) encourage soldiers to maintain their eligibility for further service.  The QMP consists of two major subprograms, the qualitative retention subprogram and the qualitative screening subprogram.  Under the qualitative screening subprogram, records for grades E-5 through E-9 are regularly screened by the DA promotion selection boards.  The appropriate selection boards evaluate past performance and estimate the potential of each soldier to determine if continued service is warranted.  Soldiers whose continued service is not warranted receive a QMP bar to reenlistment.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  At the time of the applicant's separation, paragraph 
16-8 directed the early release of soldiers with a QMP bar to reenlistment when budgetary or authorization limitations required a reduction in enlisted strength.

10.  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. 

11.   Army Regulation 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the U.S. Army Reserve.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes, including RA RE codes.

12.  RE-4 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service and the disqualification is not waivable.  

13.  Army Regulation 635-5-1, SPD/Reentry Code Cross-Reference Table states that RE code RE-4 will be used when a soldier is discharged under the QMP.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was identified for a Department of the Army QMP bar to reenlistment.  He elected not to appeal the bar and he was discharged.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  There appears to be no basis for removal or waiver of the disqualification, which established the basis for the RE code RE-4.

4.  While the Board has taken cognizance of the applicant's prior service and his continued willingness to serve his country, none of these factors, either individually or in sum, provides a basis to grant the relief requested.

5.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the assigned RE code was, and still is, appropriate.  

6.  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.

7.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

8.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the error or injustice now under consideration on 29 March 1996, the date of the discharge; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 29 March 1999.  However, the applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

    WTM           ALR      KWL          DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year statute of limitations prescribed by law.  

		_    Walter T. Morrison___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003085945	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003.12.04	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19960329	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A100.0300	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.