PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:          

	BOARD DATE:                31 January 2002              
	DOCKET NUMBER:       AR2001063995

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Beverly A. Young 		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge		Member	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that his locally imposed bar to reenlistment be removed and that his Reentry Eligibility (RE) Code be changed from RE-4 to a more favorable RE code.

3.  The applicant states that the bar to reenlistment based on the company grade Article 15 should have been “lifted” after 6 months.  He indicated that he submitted a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) and a record of an Article 15 in support of his application; however, the Article 15 was not attached to his application.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 February 1986 for a period of three years.  He completed training as a chemical operations specialist and served in Germany from 4 July 1986 through 2 August 1988. 

5.  On 12 May 1988, the applicant was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for wrongfully using marijuana/hashish between 5 March 1988 and 5 April 1988.  His punishment consisted of reduction to pay grade E-3, forfeiture of $192.00 pay (suspended to be remitted if not vacated before 8 October 1988), 14 days extra duty, and 14 days restriction.

6.  On 13 May 1988, a bar to reenlistment was imposed against the applicant for his offense.  On 18 May 1988, the applicant reviewed and acknowledged that he received a copy of the commander’s recommendation and declined to submit a statement in his behalf.  

7.  The approval authority approved the bar to reenlistment on 23 May 1988 and the applicant was advised that he could request immediate discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 16, if he believed that he was unable to overcome the bar to reenlistment.

8.  On 21 June 1988, the applicant submitted a request to be discharged prior to his normal expiration of term of service (ETS) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 16-5b, due to a locally imposed bar to reenlistment.  The request was approved by the appropriate authority on 12 July 1988.

9.  The applicant was honorably discharged on 3 August 1988 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5(b), due to a locally imposed bar to reenlistment.  He completed 2 years, 5 months and 23 days of creditable service and was issued an RE code of RE-4.

10.  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.

11.  Army Regulation 601-280 prescribes the eligibility criteria and options available in the Army Reenlistment Program.  Chapter 6 of that regulation provides for barring from reenlistment individuals whose continued active duty is not in the best interest of the military service. This chapter specifies that bars will be used when immediate administrative discharge from active service is not warranted.  Examples of rationale for reenlistment disqualification are, but are not limited to, AWOL, indebtedness, recurrent nonjudicial punishment, slow promotion progression, no demonstrated potential for future service, and substandard performance of duties.

12.  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.  

13.  Paragraph 3-27 of Army Regulation 601-210 provides that RE Codes may be changed only if they are determined to be administratively incorrect.

14.  RE-4 applies to persons separated from their last period of service with a nonwaivable disqualification and include persons being separated with a Department of the Army Bar to Reenlistment in effect.

15.  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, and 14 of Army Regulation 635-200.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, paragraph 16-5(b), due to a locally imposed bar to reenlistment and was issued an RE code of RE-4.  However, the governing regulation states that RE-4 is required for soldiers separated with a Department of the Army Bar to Reenlistment and that RE-3 is appropriate for soldiers separated with a local bar to reenlistment.  Therefore, it would be appropriate at this time to correct the applicant’s records to show that his RE code should be RE-3.

2.  The applicant was properly barred from reenlistment for wrongfully using marijuana.

3.  The locally imposed bar to reenlistment was imposed in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

4.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention; however, the applicant has failed to provide evidence to show that his bar to reenlistment should be removed.  

5.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing the individual concerned was issued an RE code of RE-3, vice the RE code of RE-4 he currently holds.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

RVO_____  EJA____  RKS____  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		Raymond V. O’Connor___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001063995	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020131	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19880803	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,paragraph 16-5(b)	
DISCHARGE REASON	Locally Imposed Bar to Reenlistment	
BOARD DECISION	GRANT IN PART	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.0600	
2.	100.0300	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.