MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           26 September 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002075784

	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. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond J. Wagner		Member	
	Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		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 his reentry (RE) code be changed.  He states that he served almost 5 years and received the Army Good Conduct Medal.  He wants to reenlist but he can't with an RE code of 3.  He provides no supporting evidence.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 July 1996.  He was honorably discharged on   9 January 2000 for the purpose of immediately reenlisting on 10 January 2000.  

On or about 7 September 2000, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for drinking alcohol with an underage soldier, conspiracy to make a false statement, and making a false official statement.  His punishment was a reduction in rank to Private First Class, E-3, a forfeiture of $667.00 pay for two months (suspended), 45 days restriction (suspended), and 45 days extra duty.

On 1 February 2001, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.  On this date also, he completed a mental status evaluation. He was found to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings and to be psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate by his command.

On 30 March 2001, the applicant's commander recommended him for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for pattern of misconduct.  He cited the applicant's failing to go to his appointed place of duty on divers occasions, his dishonorably failing to pay just debts on divers occasions, his making a false official statement, and his being charged with first degree wanton endangerment.  

On 30 March 2001, the applicant acknowledged receipt of notification of his intended separation.  He was advised by his attorney of the basis for the contemplated action. He elected not to make a statement in his own behalf.

On 2 April 2001, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant received a general discharge under honorable conditions.

On 11 April 2001, the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge under honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter    14 for pattern of misconduct.  He was given an RE code of 3.  He had completed     4 years, 9 months, and 10 days of creditable active service and had no lost time. 

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 U.S. 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 persons not qualified for continued Army service but the disqualification is waivable.  

Recruiting personnel have the responsibility for initially determining whether an individual meets current enlistment criteria.  They are required to process a request for waiver under the provisions of chapter 4, Army Regulation 601-210. 

Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1553 provides that an individual has 15 years to apply to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for a review of the characterization of separation or the narrative reason for separation. 

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 this requirement.

2.  In view of the fact the applicant was discharged for misconduct, the assigned RE code of 3 was and still is appropriate.  The applicant was disqualified from reenlistment but the disqualification is waivable.

3.  Since enlistment criteria does change, and since an individual has the right to apply for a waiver, the applicant should periodically visit his local recruiting station to determine if he should apply for a waiver.

4.  The applicant also has the option to apply to the ADRB for a change in the narrative reason for his separation.  The RE code is directly tied to the reason for separation.  If the applicant so applied, and if ADRB should change the narrative reason for his separation, it could also change his RE code.

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

__RVO_  __RJW___  ___KYF__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002075784	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/09/26	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.03	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.