MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            15 June 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999031211

	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. Walter Avery, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Orville W. Troesch, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Ms Kathleen A. Newman		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		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 reentry (RE) code be changed from RE-3 to RE-1.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was given conflicting guidance on whether or not his commander would allow him to reenlist.  He was not able to appeal the bar to reenlistment because his platoon sergeant, platoon leader and first sergeant would not support him.  He believes he was railroaded and also falsely accused of being absent without leave (AWOL) for 30 days.  He offers that while he was not perfect, he served in the Army for 8 years, loved what he was doing and would like to come back into the military.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 5 September 1984.  He served     3 years as a tanker.  He reenlisted in pay grade E-4 for 5 years on 29 April 1987. He was honorably discharged on 28 April 1992 due to a locally imposed bar to reenlistment.  His awards include the following:  Army Achievement Medal with   3 bronze Oak Leaf Clusters, Army Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal, NCO Professional Development Ribbon, Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, Expert Marksmanship Badge with M-16 rifle bar, and the Army Lapel Button.

The applicant served as a tank crewman, a senior tank crewman, and assistant tank commander in assignments at Fort Stewart, Georgia and Germany.  He was counseled in June, September, October, and December 1991 regarding indebtedness.

As a result of the foregoing, on 17 January 1992 his commander imposed a bar to his reenlistment.  The applicant indicated by his initials on the bar that he did not desire to submit a statement in his own behalf, but he did desire to appeal the bar.  However, he did not submit an appeal.

His DD Form 214, shows the applicant was separated on 28 April 1992, the authority for discharge as Army Regulation 635-200 Chapter 4, his separation code as LBK, the narrative reason as expiration term of service and his RE Code as “3”.

Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program, provides guidance for determining RE codes.  It provides that RE-3 applies to persons who are not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.

Army Regulation 601-280 prescribes the eligibility criteria and options available in the Army Reenlistment Program. Chapter 6 of that regulation provides for barring from reenlistment individuals whose continued active duty is not in the best interest of the military service. This chapter specifies that bars will be used when immediate administrative discharge from active service is not warranted. Examples of rationale for reenlistment disqualification include, but are not limited to, AWOL, indebtedness, recurrent nonjudicial punishment, slow promotion 
progression, no demonstrated potential for future service, and substandard performance of duties.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The record contains no evidence to indicate that the applicant was not properly counseled regarding the bar to reenlistment.  The fact that those in his leadership chain who had day to day observation of him would not support his appeal only further indicates the bar to reenlistment was proper.  The applicant implies the bar was due to AWOL charges.  However, there is no AWOL or lost time recorded in the applicant’s record.  Rather, the bar to his reenlistment was the result of indebtedness. 

2.  The applicant has not provided a convincing argument why the RE-3 code was wrong or why it should be changed.

3.  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

___owt__   __kan____  ___mvt _  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031211	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000615	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION		
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.102.4		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.