MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:          10 August 2000                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR1999034672

	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	
	Ms. Rosa M. Chandler		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Mark D. Manning		Chairperson	
	Mr. John Saputo		Member	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz 		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, correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show that he was honorably discharged and that his reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be corrected to show that he is eligible to reenlist.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, he has applied for a position with his local police department and he believes that his opportunities for getting the position will improve if both his characterization of service and his RE code is changed. 

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

That he enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 April 1985 for 2 years.  He was assigned to Fort Benning, Georgia for one-station unit training.

During basic training, he experienced difficulty adjusting to military life.  He was counseled 12 times between 29 April-20 June 1985 for various reasons, to include for being in poor physical condition; for failing the diagnostic Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT); for missing training due to being on profile numerous times; for dereliction of his duties; for being disrespectful towards his superiors; for his inability to adjust to his military environment; for his negative attitude towards the military; and for his inability to deal with stress.

As a result of the applicant’s demonstrated inability to adjust to his military environment, on 17 June 1985 he underwent a mental status evaluation by professionally trained personnel.  During his evaluation he expressed a negative attitude towards remaining in the military.  He also indicated poor impulse control and a low tolerance for dealing with stress and pressure in a productive manner.  The recommendation was that the applicant be considered for an administrative separation for his own well-being.  

On 20 June 1985, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of entry level status performance and conduct.  The commander stated that the applicant’s ability was limited, he lacked motivation, he had problems adjusting, he had a negative attitude and it was unlikely he would become a productive soldier as the bases for the recommendation.  He was advised of his rights and of the impact of the discharge action.  He waived further legal counsel and he did not submit a statement on his behalf. 

On 25 June 1985, the separation authority directed that the applicant be discharged in an entry level status. 

On 28 June 1985, the applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 11-3a (entry level status-performance and conduct), with an uncharacterized discharge.  He had completed 2 months and 6 days of active military service.  He was assigned an RE code of RE-3. 

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 11, of this regulation, in effect at the time, provided, for the separation of personnel due to unsatisfactory performance, conduct, or both, while in an entry level status.  This provision of regulation applied to individuals who had demonstrated that they were not qualified for retention because they could not adapt socially or emotionally to military life, or they lacked the aptitude, ability, motivation or self discipline for military service, or they had demonstrated characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service.  The separation policy applies to soldiers who cannot meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of a lack of aptitude, ability, motivation or self-discipline.  The regulation requires uncharacterized service for separation under this chapter.

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 enlisting and processing into the RA and the eligibility for prior service applicant’s for enlistment.  That regulation includes a list of Armed Forces codes. 

RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, however, the disqualification is waivable.  Local recruiting personnel have the responsibility for determining whether an individual meets the current enlistment criteria.  They must process a request for a waiver to reenlist in the Army.

The record indicates the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request to change the reason for his discharge on 15 December 1999.  It was not within the purview of the ADRB to change the RE code.

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 in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations then in effect, with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.

3.  The applicant was separated and assigned an RE code in accordance with regulations then in effect. 

4.  There appears to be no basis for removal or waiver of the disqualification which established the basis for the RE code.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.  The assigned RE code was and still is appropriate.

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

__mdm__  ___js____  __kah___  DENY APPLICATION

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

						

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999034672	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000810	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(EL)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19850625	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.