MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            19 September 2000                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2000040689

	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. Hubert O. Fry, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. John P. Infante		Member	
	Ms. Regan k. Smith		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 the RE-3 was a wrongful recommendation by his company commander, it was a personal frame that ruined his career and future. He further states that the RE-3 had nothing to do with his general technical (GT) score, his NCO Evaluations, his dedication, or his knowledge of his job.

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

He enlisted in the Army on 3 October 1983 for 3 years.  He successfully completed his training as a unit supply specialist and served continuously until discharge.

On 15 August 1990, the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to bar him from reenlistment.  The primary basis for the action was the applicant’s two academic failures of the Primary Leadership Development Course and his failure of the 42nd ULM course for instructors.

On 15 May 1991, the applicant’s company commander, of 2 weeks, stated he was unable to evaluate the applicant due to his short time in command and recommended the applicant be reviewed in 60 days.

On 30 May 1991, the applicant was counseled that 5 months remained on his bar to reenlistment and outlined a list of standards he must meet. 

On 13 July 1991, the applicant was counseled for lateness for duty.  The applicant rebutted that he had worked from 0430 to 2030 the previous day, he had not gotten to sleep until 0330, and was only 13 minutes late.

On 15 July 1991, the applicant was counseled for being late on 5 occasions while attending the Basic Skills Education Program.

On 9 August 1991, the applicant was counseled for leaving the supply room keys unsecured.

On 19 August 1991, the applicant was counseled for failure to follow instructions and failure to accomplish his mission.  The applicant rebutted that he was tasked to do several things at the same time.

On 28 August 1991, the applicant retested and raised his GT score from 92 to 113.

On 9 October 1991, the commander informed the applicant he was recommending that the bar to reenlistment be lifted and if approved he must complete the Primary Leadership Development Course.

On 29 October 1991, the applicant was counseled for failure of his skill qualification test.  The applicant rebutted the counseling.  He stated that he had some concerns about the way in which the test was edited and implied he would be challenging some of the questions.  He did not submit a revised test score.

On 12 December 1991, the applicant submitted a request for voluntary separation in accordance with AR 635-200, chapter 16 (separation of soldiers denied reenlistment).

On 13 December 1991, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge under the provision of AR 635-200, chapter 16 with issuance of an honorable discharge.

On 5 June 1992, the applicant was discharged with an honorable discharge.

On 13 May 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s appeal.

On 4 February 1999, the Army Reserve Personnel Command denied the applicant entry into the US Army Reserve Active Guard Reserve Program.  The denial was based on the fact the applicant’s records show he had been separated for cause.

AR 635-5, Separation Documents, Interim change 1 dated 2 October 1989, provides, in pertinent part that, RE-3 is assigned to soldiers with a local bar to reenlistment who have less than 18 years active service.

AR 601-210, Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program, provides guidance for determining RE codes.  RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.  Individuals separated under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 16 are not eligible for enlistment without an approved waiver.

Recruiting personnel have the responsibility for initially determining whether an individual meets current enlistment criteria. Since enlistment criteria do change, and since an individual has the right to apply for a waiver, the applicant should periodically visit his or her local recruiting station to determine if he or she should apply for a waiver.

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 contention that the awarding of a RE-3 was not reflective of his duty performance is contrasted by the various negative counseling statements present in his records.  Further, his contention that the bar to reenlistment and related RE-3 are the results of a personal “frame” by his company commander is unfounded.  Once the applicant’s request for discharge under AR 635-200, chapter 16 was approved the RE-3 code was mandatory.  The company commander had no discretion as to which RE code to apply.

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

__hof____  __jpi ____  ____rks_  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000040689	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000919	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.02	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.