MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:    

	BOARD DATE:           28 March 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001063984

	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	
	Mrs. Carolyn G. Wade		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lester Echols		Member	
	Mr. Thomas Lanyi		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 her reentry eligibility (RE) code be changed from RE-3 to RE-1.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she wants her RE code changed in order to enlist in the Air Force.  She believes that the Air Force offers many opportunities that would allow her to better herself and that to take advantage of these opportunities she needs an RE code of RE-1 or RE-2.  She believes that she was treated unfairly at the Noncommissioned Officer Academy and that no one tried to help her adjust to her new environment.  Currently, she is serving in the Navy Reserve.

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

She enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years on 14 October 1993.  Following completion of basic combat and advanced individual training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, the applicant was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 71L, Administrative Specialist, and was assigned to Fort Benning, Georgia, for her first permanent duty assignment.

On 9 May 1994, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being absent from her appointed place of duty at the time prescribed.  Her punishment consisted of forfeiture of $194.00 pay and 14 days of restriction and extra duty.

The applicant accumulated a record of non-payment of just debts by writing 4 dishonored checks to the Army and Air Force Exchange Service between 6 May and 26 May 1994.  The applicant was counseled on numerous times for her work performance, lack of respect for authority, and failure to follow the rules.

On 25 September 1994, the applicant was barred from reenlistment because of her NJP and dishonored checks.

On 7 May 1996, the applicant requested discharge from the Army under the provisions of chapter 16-5b, Army Regulation 635-200, based upon the fact that she felt she could not overcome the bar to reenlistment.

On 8 May 1996, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request with an honorable characterization of service.  Accordingly, on 4 June 1996, the applicant was released from active duty and transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve after completing 2 years, 7 months, and 21 days of creditable military service.  Her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) reflects the narrative reason for separation as release from active duty, with a separation code of MGH, and an RE code of RE-3.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 16-5b of that regulation establishes policy and procedures, and provides authority for the voluntary separation of soldiers denied reenlistment due to a locally imposed bar to reenlistment.  

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.  RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.

Army Regulation 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes, contains narrative reasons for discharge, the appropriate SPD codes for those narrative reasons, and a cross-reference to the applicable RE code.  Soldiers separated for the purpose of non-retention on active duty due to a locally imposed bar to reenlistment are issued an RE code of RE-3.

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 Board noted that the applicant’s chain of command tried to assist her in performing and conducting herself to Army standards by providing counseling and by the imposition of nonjudicial punishment and a local Bar to Reenlistment; however, the applicant failed to respond appropriately.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize her rights.  Additionally, the evidence of record does not support the applicant’s contention of being treated unfairly and she provided no evidence to support it.

3.  The Board carefully reviewed the applicant’s records and determined that her RE code of RE-3 is the appropriate code for her narrative reason for discharge.

4.  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.

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

__FNE__  ___LE   __  __TL____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001063984	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020328	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19960604	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, c16-5b	
DISCHARGE REASON	Non-retention on active duty	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Director	
ISSUES         1.	100.0300	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.