MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:             20 June 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR1999031920

	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			
	Ms. Antoinette E. Farley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Van B. Cunningham 		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz Jr.		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 she be provided a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) to show that her under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge was upgraded to a general discharge (GD), under honorable conditions; that her pay grade be shown as E-5; and that her reentry eligibility (RE) code be changed from RE-3 to RE-1.  

APPLICANT STATES:  That she applied for an Army Guard/Reserve (AGR) position.  The AGR told her that she was ineligible for cause, i.e. her RE code.
She points out that on 19 September 1991 she went before the Board of Corrections of Military Records (ABCMR) (actually the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB)) and her discharge was upgraded.  She states that she was given back her highest rank, but that the RE code was not changed.  In support of her application, she submits a copy of a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) with item 18 (Remarks) showing that she received an upgrade on 910919 based on an application to the ADRB on 900522.   The form also shows in item 4 that her pay grade was E-4 and in item 27 that her RE code was RE-3.  

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

She served in the Delaware Army National Guard (DEARNG) from 9 July 1981 to 
10 December 1983, when she was transferred to the Army Reserve (USAR) to complete her service obligation.  Her military occupational specialty (MOS) was MOS 71L (Administrative Specialist) and the highest pay grade she attained was E-4.  On 22 May 1986, she was discharged from the USAR and enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years, in pay grade E-1, for duty in MOS 71L. 

On 22 January l987, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for willfully and unlawfully altering a public record.  Her punishment included forfeiture of $125.00 pay, 
14 days of restriction and a suspended reduction to pay grade E-2.  

On 10 July 1987, the applicant’s military record were corrected by the ABMCR to show that she was advanced to pay grade E-2, effective 7 June 1986 and to pay grade E-3, with waiver, effective 7 August 1986.

On 7 May 1987, she was advanced to pay grade E-4, which was the highest pay grade she achieved, during the enlistment under review.  On 14 July 1987, she extended her enlistment in order to complete a 3-year tour of overseas duty in Germany.

The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s discharge are no longer in her records, The following sequence of actions are taken from the OSA Form 
172 (Case Report and Directive), prepared by the ADRB on 19 September 1991.

On 27 June 1989, the applicant was charged under the UCMJ with stealing a wallet containing about 500 Deutche Marks and about $120.00 in American currency; with four specifications of writing bad checks in the amount of $1908.00, from 13 May 1988 to 30 February 1989; with falsely pretending to be eligible for check cashing privileges from 24 January to 3 February 1989; for wrongfully obtained services of a value of about $640.00 from 24 January to 3 February 1989; and with making a false statement on 16 April 1989.

On 17 July 1989, she consulted legal counsel and requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, AR 635-200, for the good of the service.  She did not submit a statement in her own behalf.  

On 18 July 1989 and 24 July 1989, the unit commander and the intermediate commander, respectively, recommended that she be approved for a UOTHC discharge.

On 31 July 1989, the separation authority approved her request for separation with a UOTHC discharge.

On 9 August 1989, she was discharged with a UOTHC discharge, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provision of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  She was administratively reduced from pay grade E-4 to pay grade E-1 as a result of the directed UOTHC characterization of service.  She had completed 3 years, 2 months and 19 days of active service and had no lost time. She was also assigned an RE code of RE-3.

The applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking an upgrade of her discharge.  The applicant personally appeared before that board.  On 19 September 1991, the ADRB upgraded her discharge to a GD, with no change in the reason for discharge.  The RE code also remained RE 3.  A new DD Form 214 was issued showing the corrected characterization of service, a separation pay grade of E-4 and an RE code of RE-3.

In connection with this upgrade action, the ADRB directed that the applicant’s rank be restored to pay grade E-5.  However, there is no evidence that she ever served in pay grade E-5 during the enlistment under review.  The pay grade in which she was serving at the time the discharge was approved on 31 July l989 was pay grade E-4.  Therefore, the applicant’s new DD Form 214 correctly shows her pay grade as E-4.
It is further noted that the applicant has again served in the DEARNG since at least May l990, with at least part of her period of service in an AGR status.  Her current rank is sergeant, pay grade E-5.  Her current period of service in the Reserve components will end in November 2001.  

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Army policy states that although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

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.  An RE code of RE-3 indicate that the applicant would need a waiver to reenlist.

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 unjust.  The applicant, in this case, has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  Since the ADRB action directed an upgraded of her characterization of discharge from UOTHC to a GD, a new DD Form 214 was issued at that time.  Therefore, a DD Form 215 was not appropriate nor needed.

3.  While the ADRB erred in restoring her pay grade to E-5, her corrected DD Form 214 properly shows that she was restored to pay grade E-4.  This was the pay grade in which there she was serving at the time that her chapter 10 discharge was originally approved.

4.  Since no change in reason for discharge was directed by the ADRB, her RE code appropriately remained as an RE-3. 

5.  The applicant has provided no evidence that the RE code of RE-3 is improper.  Since no change in the reason for discharge is appropriate, there is no basis for a change in the RE code.  However, the applicant still retains the right to request a waiver of her RE code from Army recruiting officials for the purpose of returning to an active duty status in the Regular Army or with the AGR program.  

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis to grant 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

__vbc___  __jea____  ___ewl__  DENY APPLICATION

Carl W. S. Chun
Director, Army Boards for Correction
of military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031920	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000622	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19890908	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 CH10	
DISCHARGE REASON	A70.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	A133.05	
2.	A129.00	
3.	A100.03	
4.		
5.		
6.