RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            20 November 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003088131

	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. Yvonne J. Foskey		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Ms. Linda D. Simmons		Member	
	Mr. Robert L. Duecaster		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, in effect, that his reentry (RE) code of RE-3 be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he would like to have his RE-3 code removed from his records so that he may reenter the military.  He states that the RE-3 code he received was due to his poor vision, which has been corrected with glasses.  He claims that he was told that the RE-3 code would allow him to reenlist.  

3.  The applicant provides a self authored letter, dated 14 March 2003; a record of eye examinations he took on 20 September 1996 and 22 September 2002; a copy of an Army National Guard separation document (NGB Form 22); and a memorandum from a sergeant from the 94th Regional Support Command (RSC). 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of (error or injustice) which occurred
on 1 December 1992.  The application submitted in this case is dated 13 March 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’s military record shows that he enlisted in the Army National Guard for 8 years on 24 June 1992.  On 4 August 1992, he entered active duty in order to complete his initial active duty for training.  

4.  On 17 November 1992, an Entrance Physical Standards Board (EPSBD) convened at Moncrief Army Community Hospital, Fort Jackson, South Carolina, to evaluate the applicant.  The EPSBD Proceedings (DA Form 4707) contained a recommendation that the applicant not be retained in service based on his diagnosed medical conditions of Esophoria; Amblyopia, OS, dissociated vertical deviation, OS, dissociated horizontal deviation, OS; and latent nystagmus which interferes with his ability to successfully qualify with a rifle.  The medical approving authority approved the findings and recommendations of the EPSBD on the same date.  
5.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel and was counseled regarding the rights and options available to him in connection with the EPSBD action.  Subsequent to this counseling, he concurred with the EPSBD Proceedings and requested to be discharged from the Army without delay in Item 21 (Action by Service Member) of the DA Form 4707.  This portion of the EPSBD Proceedings also provided for the applicant to disagree with the proceedings and/or to request retention on active duty if he so desired.  

6.  The unit commander recommended that the applicant be separated based on the EPSBD results in Item 25 (Action by Unit Commander) of the DA Form 4707. On 21 November 1992, the separation authority approved the applicant’s separation in Item 29 (Action by Discharge Authority) of the DA Form 4707.  On 
1 December 1992, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  

7.  The separation document (DD214) issued to the applicant on the date of his discharge confirms the authority for his separation was paragraph 5-11, 
Army Regulation 635-200, and the narrative reason for separation was “does not meet procurement medical fitness standard, no disability.”  This document also verifies that based on the authority and reason for his discharge, he was assigned a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JFT and an RE code of RE-3.

8.  The statement from the 94th RSC sergeant confirms that the applicant was processed for enlistment in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) in 1996, but was denied due to medical reasons.  This sergeant fails to identify the specific medical reasons used for the 1996 denial.  

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 5-11 provides the policy for separation of personnel who do not meet procurement medical fitness standards.  Such conditions must be discovered during the first six months of active duty, and such findings will result in an EPSBD.

10.  Army Regulation 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the United States Army Reserve (USAR).  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.  RE-1 applies to persons completing their terms of service who are considered fully qualified to reenter the US Army and RE-3 applies to persons who are not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at the time of separation but the disqualification is waivable.

11.  Table 4-1 of Army Regulation 601-210 provides a list of all waivable moral and administrative disqualifications.  It confirms that those individuals who separated from any component of the Army for medial reasons, to include separation with or without disability severance pay, are disqualified from reenlistment; however, this disqualification is waivable.

12.   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 JFT was the appropriate code for the applicant based on the guidance provided in this regulation for soldiers separating under the provisions of paragraph 5-11, 
Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of not meeting procurement of medical fitness standard.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table used in conjunction with this regulation establishes that RE-3 will be the assigned to members separated with this SPD code. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s claim that his medical problem was corrected through the use of glasses and he would like an RE code that would allow him to reenlist was carefully considered.  However, the evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s separation processing was accomplished only after he was evaluated by an EPSBD and concurred with the findings and recommendations of this properly constituted medical board.  

2.  The evidence further confirms that although he had the option to disagree with the EPSBD findings and recommendations and/or to request retention on active duty subsequent to his concurrence with the EPSBD separation recommendation, he did neither and instead requested immediate discharge from the Army.  

3.  By regulation, the RE-3 code is the proper code to assign members separating under the provisions of paragraph 5-11, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of failure to meet procurement medical fitness standards.  As a result, the RE-3 code assigned the applicant at discharge was and still is appropriate based on the authority and reason for his separation.  

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 forgoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s request.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the error or injustice now under consideration on 1 December 1992; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 1 December 1995. 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.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  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.  

		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003088131	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/11	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UNCHAR	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1992/12/01	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, Para 5-11	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION		
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.