MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           11 March 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002075483

	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. Joyce A. Hall		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Chairperson	
	Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler		Member	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		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, that the reentry code (RE) "3" be changed to "1".

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he is fit for active duty and that he is physically fit for reenlistment in the Air Force.

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

On 11 June 1992, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 6 years.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 91D10 (operating room specialist).  

On 18 May 1995, the applicant's records show that he was counseled for failure to pass the Army Physical Fitness Training (APFT).  A suspension of favorable personnel actions (Flag) was imposed on the applicant.

On 30 May 1995, the applicant was counseled concerning his behavior.

On 31 MAY 1995, the applicant's team leader recommended that the applicant not appear before the June 1995 promotion board.

Between 13 June 1995 and 11 September 1995, the applicant was counseled on two separate occasions concerning his performance of duty, for failing to attend the special fitness program and for failure to obey a direct order.

On 18 September 1995, the applicant was notified that nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was being initiated against him.

On 4 October 1995, the applicant's records show that he received NJP for failure to obey a direct order.  His imposed punishment was 7 days extra duty and a reduction to pay grade E-3 (suspended until 4 November 1995).  

On 10 October 1995, the applicant was barred from reenlistment.

The DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) dated 10 October 1995, shows that the applicant requested to be released from active duty in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter16, paragraph 5b, due to a locally imposed bar to reenlistment which he felt he was unable to overcome.  The applicant's separation information is missing from his records.

On 20 October 1995, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request for discharge.  On 7 November 1995, the applicant was honorably released from active duty, in pay grade E-4, under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5b.  He completed 3 years, 4 months and 27 days of active military service. He was given a RE-3.
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 16-5b 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.

Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated reasons.  The regulation shows that the separation program designator “MGH” as shown on the applicant’s DD Form 214 specifies the narrative reason for discharge as “Non-Retention on Active Duty” and that the authority for discharge under this separation program designator is “AR 635-200, chapter 16, paragraph 5b.”
Additionally, Table 2-3 (SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table) in Army Regulation 635-5-1 shows that when SPD is MGH then RE-3 will be given.

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 person not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.

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 is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, that shows irregularity in the assignment of his RE code.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with regulations applicable at the time.  The narrative reason for separation was appropriate given the circumstances of his separation; therefore, the assigned RE-3 was and still is appropriate.  The applicant was disqualified from reenlistment, but the disqualification is waivable under Army Regulations.

3. In the absence of evidence that the applicant's RE code was in error or improper, there is no basis to change the applicant's RE code.

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.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

_SLP___  _SAC___  _TSK ____  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002075483	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20030311	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun	
ISSUES         1.	100.0300	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.