MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:            5 April 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031129

	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.

	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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 of 3 and 3B be changed to a more favorable code.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he departed to America on emergency leave.  He also stated that he needed more time so he went to the Governor’s Office of American Samoa, who call his company for an extension and was informed that his extension was approved for one more week.  Upon returning to his company he was reported AWOL.  He further states that he was not aware of the RE Code assigned to him until he attempted to enlist and was informed by a noncommissioned officer to take care of this action immediately.

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

He enlisted on 3 October 1977 as a light weapons infantryman and continued to serve until he was honorably discharged on 14 April 1981 in order to reenlist.
He reenlisted on 15 April 1981.

The applicant’s personnel records show he went AWOL on 3 January 1984 and remained AWOL until 5 January 1984 (3 days).

On 27 May 1986, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 27 February to 3 March 1986 (4 days),
from 13 April to 22 April 1986 (10 days), for disobeying a lawful general regulation, for wrongfully influencing subordinates to provide financial benefits and for making a false statement.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-4, forfeiture of pay and 45 days restriction and extra duty.

On 3 September 1986, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct-commission of a serious offense.  He based his recommendation on the applicant’s aforementioned disciplinary infractions.

The applicant consulted with counsel, he waived consideration of his case by a board of officers and representation by counsel and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

On 18 September 1986, the commander submitted his recommendation to separate the applicant under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct-commission of a serious offense.

On 30 September 1986, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 9 October 1986.  He had a total of 8 years, 
11 months, and 17 days of creditable service and 17 days of lost time due to AWOL.  He was issued an RE code of RE “3” and “3B”.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15 year statute of limitations.

Army regulation 635-200 sets for 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, patterns of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.

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 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-3 applies to persons nor qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.  Certain persons who have received nonjudicial
punishment are so disqualified, as are persons with bars to reenlistment, and those discharged under the provisions of chapter 9, 10, 13, 14, and 16 of Army Regulation 635-200.

RE-3B applies to soldiers separated prior tot he effective date of this regulation,
but did not meet reentry criteria at the time of separation.

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 noted the applicant’s contentions; however, there is no evidence to show that he was granted an extension by the Governor’s office of American Samoa in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to support his contentions.

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

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

4.  The applicant was separated and assigned a reentry code in accordance with regulations then in effect.

5.  The applicant has failed to show, through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record that the RE code issued to him was incorrect.

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 the aforementioned requirement.

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:

RVO____  SK______  LE______  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031129	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000405	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19861009	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	110	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1  4		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.