MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            6 December 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001058673

	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. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Member	
	Mr. Harry B. Oberg		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 appropriate military records to show a reentry eligibility (RE) code which would allow reenlistment.  In effect, this constitutes a request for removal or waiver of those disqualifications which preclude reenlistment.

APPLICANT STATES:  That upon the conditions of agreeing to his Article 15 and being forced to sign his bar to reenlistment, it was his understanding that he could remain on active duty.  He further states that he was originally offered counseling which he agreed upon because his understanding was that if he successfully completed the required courses, he would be able to return to his troop and resume his duties.  He states that the terms of the agreement changed when the new colonel took his position.  He concludes by stating that he was forced to choose three different military occupational specialties and was denied; therefore, he was forced to separate from the Army.

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

On 7 July 1988, he enlisted in the Army for 5 years in the pay grade of E-2.  He successfully completed his training as an observation/scout helicopter repairer.

The applicant was counseled on 6 June 1989, after the completion of a urinalysis that verified contraband content.  He was referred to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program with an appointment date of 22 June 1989.

On the same date (22 June 1989), the applicant was notified that he was being barred from reenlistment.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification opting not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

Nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant on 30 June 1989, for using marijuana.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of 
E-1, 30 days restriction and 30 days extra duty.

The bar to reenlistment was approved by the appropriate authority on 31 July 1989.  At the time that the bar to reenlistment was approved, the applicant indicated that he would not submit an appeal.

On 19 April 1990, he submitted a request for immediate separation, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 16.  In his request, he stated that he understood that if his request for separation was approved that recoupment of unearned portions of any enlistment or reenlistment bonus was required and that he would not be allowed to reenlist at a later date.

The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge on 10 May 1990.  Accordingly, the applicant was honorably discharged on 4 June 1990, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 16-5b, as a result of a locally imposed bar to reenlistment.  He had completed 1 year, 10 months and 28 days of total active service and he was assigned a reentry (RE) code of RE-3.

A review of the records fails to show that the applicant was informed that he would be allowed to remain on active duty if he signed his bar to reenlistment and agreed to the conditions of his Article 15, or that he was forced to separate from the Army.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 16 covers discharges caused by changes in service obligations. Paragraph 16-5 applies to personnel denied reenlistment and provides that soldiers who receive DA imposed or locally imposed bars to reenlistment, and who perceive that they will be unable to overcome the bar may apply for immediate discharge.  Incident to the request, the member must state that he understands that recoupment of unearned portions of any enlistment or reenlistment bonus is required and that later reenlistment is not permitted.

RE-3 applies to persons not 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 chapters 9, 10, 13, 14 and 16 of Army Regulation 635-200.

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 applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of the request.

2.  The Board has noted his contentions; however, they are unsubstantiated by the evidence of record.  The record clearly shows that he had nonjudicial punishment imposed against him for using marijuana.  He was barred from reenlistment as a result of his actions and he submitted a request for discharge indicating that he understood that he would not be permitted to reenlist at a later date.  

3.  There is no evidence of record that shows that the applicant was forced to sign his bar to reenlistment or that he agreed to an Article 15 with conditions that would be allowed him to remain on active duty. 

4.  There appears to be no basis for removal or waiver of that disqualification which established the basis for the RE code he was assigned.

5.  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

__fe ____  __hbo___  __tap ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001058673	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/12/06	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  471	144.0720	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.