PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           17 October 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002078198

	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. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		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 reentry (RE) code be changed to a 1.

3.  The applicant states that his discharge was upgraded from general to honorable in January 1996.  He tried to join the U. S. Air Force but his waiver was disapproved due to his RE code.  He knows the U. S. Air Force is looking for personnel for their security force and that is his job right now with the Delaware Air National Guard.  He is now (as of 19 July 2002) on active duty because of the events of 11 September 2001.

4.  The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 2 September 1987.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman).  He completed basic airborne training.

5.  On 24 February 1992, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for dereliction in the performance of his duties by willfully failing to jump.  Prior to acceptance of the Article 15, he provided a memorandum to his commander.  He stated that he had been in the service for more than 4 years.  He spent most of his first 2 years as a training noncommissioned officer.  Around August 1989, he was assigned to Germany and spent most of his time as a supply clerk in a military intelligence unit.  He never really worked as an airborne infantryman.  If terminating his jump status or refusing to jump, to avoid any unsafe act because of his fear (of heights), was misconduct then he was willing to accept his punishment.  He further stated that if his punishment included a reduction in rank, it would cause him a financial hardship and he would then like to request to be discharged.

6.  Around April 1992, the applicant's commander recommended his separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, misconduct, for commission of a serious offense.  The reason for the proposed action was the applicant's receiving a field grade Article 15 for refusing to perform in an airborne operation.

7.  The applicant provided two statements with his separation packet.  He requested an honorable discharge.  He noted that he never received any disciplinary actions in almost 5 years of service.  He served in Southwest Asia.  
During his three jumps while at airborne school he always had problems and developed a fear of heights.  While in Germany, circumstances always seemed to intervene to cancel his scheduled jumps.  While in Saudi Arabia, he had an accident, which resulted in his being medically evacuated, and his fear became worse.  He was put on profile.  By the time he recovered from his accident he was about on his way to Fort Bragg, NC.  When he received his orders to the 82d Airborne Division, he requested another duty station because he had not overcome his fear.  Because of the drawdown his request was disapproved.  He was told he could terminate his jump status once he got to the Division.  However, once he got to the 82d Airborne Division Replacement Detachment,  he was told there was no way he could terminate his jump status.  In January 1992, he was sent to jump refresher training.  He told one of the cadre about his fear, who suggested he try the tower.  He tried it but almost hurt himself.  On      3 February 1992, he was verbally denied permission to submit a request to voluntarily terminate his jump status.  He was manifested to jump on 12 February 1992.  The day before he had reiterated that he did not want to jump.  His request was denied and that gave him no choice but to not show up on the day of the jump.  

8.  The applicant's intermediate-level commanders recommended approval of the separation action with an honorable discharge.  The approval authority approved separation with a general discharge.

9.  On 27 May 1992, the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge, after completing 4 years, 8 months, and 26 days of creditable active service.  

10.  On 20 June 1996, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) deemed that the characterization of the applicant's service as general was too harsh and voted to upgrade his discharge to honorable.  The ADRB also determined that his command abused its authority by not responding appropriately to his requests to terminate his jump status to preclude the misconduct for which he was separated.  The narrative reason for his discharge was changed to Secretarial Authority.  It does not appear that the ADRB considered the applicant's RE code.

11.  On 15 September 1997, the applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard.  He was awarded military occupational specialty 95B (Military Police) on 14 August 1998.  He was discharged from the Army National Guard of Delaware and as a Reserve of the Army on 28 April 2000.  He enlisted in the Delaware Air National Guard on 29 April 2000.  He was placed on active duty from 28 September 2001 to 28 September 2002.

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 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.

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

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was given the correct RE code considering the reason for his discharge (misconduct).  The Board notes, however, the ADRB's reasoning in voting to both upgrade his discharge and to change the narrative reason for his separation.  Particularly, the ADRB determined that his command abused its authority by not responding appropriately to his requests to terminate his jump status to preclude the misconduct for which he was separated.  This Board believes that had he been allowed to voluntarily terminate his jump status it is unlikely, considering his prior service record, that he would have separated with any RE code other than 1.  

2.  The applicant has since gone on to successfully serve in both the Army National Guard and the Air National Guard.  Considering all the circumstances in this case, it would be equitable at this point in time to grant the full relief requested and change his RE code to 1.

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

RECOMMENDATION:

That the applicant's DD Form 214 be further amended to change his reentry code to 1.

BOARD VOTE:  

__JHL__  __MVT__  ___RTD__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		___JoAnn H. Langston   _
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002078198	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/10/17	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.03	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.