MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           21 FEBRUARY 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001064838

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. George D. Paxson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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 RE (Reenlistment Eligibility) Code be changed from 3 to 2 to permit her to reenlist.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that she would like the opportunity to serve her country again and believes that she could serve if given “a second chance.”  She states that her current RE Code prevents her from doing that.  She states she is a good American citizen and just wants another chance.  She submits no evidence in support of her request.

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

She entered active duty on 16 November 2000.  In July 2001, while assigned to Fort Huachuca, Arizona, the applicant’s unit commander initiated action to administratively separate her from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  

Her commander cited the applicant’s 11 failures of the Army’s Physical Fitness Test, and numerous records of counseling for disobeying orders and not following the unit’s SOP (standard operating procedure).  He recommended the applicant receive a general discharge.

The applicant consulted with counsel and acknowledged that she understood that she could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if she received a general discharge.  She did not submit any statements in her own behalf.  

The unit commander’s recommendation was approved and on 18 July 2001 the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) reflects an RE Code of “3” and an SPD (Separation Program Designator) Code of “JHJ.”

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the policy and prescribes the procedures for administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13, in effect at that time, applied to separation for unfitness and unsuitability.  Unsuitability included inaptitude, apathy, alcoholism and character and behavior disorders.  When separation for unsuitability was warranted an honorable or general discharge was issued as determined by the separation authority based upon the individual's entire record.

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.

RE-3 applies to individuals who were not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at the time of separation, including those separated for unsatisfactory performance, but the disqualification is waivable.  RE-2 applied to individuals who were separated prior to completing their enlistment contract, but who did not contemplate reenlistment.  However, as of 1995 the RE-2 was no longer in use by the Army.

Additionally, Army Regulation 635-5-1 states that SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations, which identify reasons for, and types of separation from active duty.  The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation.  They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DOD and the military services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data.  It notes that “JHJ” is the appropriate SPD code for individuals separated for unsatisfactory performance.

A “cross-reference” chart, provided by officials from the separations branch at the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, confirms that “RE-3” is the appropriate RE Code for individuals who receive an SPD code of JHJ.

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 that requirement.

2.  The Board notes that the applicant’s RE code is appropriate considering the basis for her separation and is consistent with her SPD code. 

3.  In spite of the fact that the Army no longer uses an RE-2, the Board finds no basis to change the applicant’s existing RE Code.  The Board does note, however, that an RE code of “3” is waivable and recommends the applicant contact her local recruiter to pursue such a waiver.

4.  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

__GDP__  __TAP __  __MHM__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001064838	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020221	
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.	100.03	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.