MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  22 April 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002079217

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Ms. Mae M. Bullock		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 his Reentry (RE) Code of "4" be changed to a more favorable code in order to enlist.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his RE Code prevents him from reenlisting and from being reinstated to active duty.  In support of his application, he submits copies of his:  DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty); two character references; several evaluation reports; and a copy of his bar to reenlistment appeal.  The back of his DD Form 149 was blank.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  Attorney, as counsel for the applicant, contends that he was unfairly separated during his Qualitative Management Program (QMP).  He receive an honorable discharge with issuance of an RE Code of RE "4" due to reduction in force.  In August 1994, he received a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR) for driving under the influence (DUI) and had minor suggested improvement areas in a Noncommisisoned Officer Evaluation Report (NCOER) in November 1990.  Counsel contends that his overall record should be evaluated and the applicant should be returned to active duty.  

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he enlisted on 1 September 1983 and remained on active duty through a series of reenlistments.  He was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 effective 1 January 1994.

On 13 October 1994, the Commanding General (CG) of the 82nd Airborne Division issued a GOMOR to the applicant for DUI of alcohol on 27 August 1994. This was imposed as an administrative measure and not as punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military justice (UCMJ).  The CG stated that it was his intent to file this memorandum in the applicant’s OMPF.  The memorandum was referred to the applicant for comment.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the GOMOR and was informed to submit any matters in rebuttal, extenuation, or mitigation through his chain of command.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  The CG recommended that the applicant’s LOR be filed on his OMPF.

On 8 November 1995, the applicant was notified of his Headquarters Department of the Army (HQDA) bar to reenlistment under QMP.  The basis for the determination was the applicant's GOMOR and one NCOER.

The applicant appealed the bar through his chain of command to the DA 
Standby Advisory Board (STAB), which was denied on 19 March 1996.  The 
STAB stated that the past performance and estimated potential of the applicant were not in keeping with the standards expected of the NCO Corps and that 
the bar would remain in effect.

The applicant was honorably discharged on 31 July 1996, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 16-8, due to reduction in force.  He had completed 12 years and 11 months of creditable service.

Item 27 (Reenlistment Code) of the applicant’s DD Form 214 shows the entry "4" and item 26 (Separation Code) shows the entry "JCC."

The two character reference letters provided by the applicant attest to his maturity, attitude, leadership, and ability to accomplish any assigned task.  He was commended for leadership skills as a squad leader and recruiter. 

Army Regulation 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 16-8 of this regulation sets forth the requirements for early separation of enlisted personnel due to reduction in force, strength limitations, or budgetary constraints.  The service of personnel separated under this paragraph will be characterized as honorable.

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–4 applies to persons not qualified for continued service by virtue of being separated from the service with non-waivable disqualifications such as persons with a HQDA bar to reenlistment.

Army Regulation 635-5-1 states that separation program designator (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 "JCC" is the appropriate SPD for individuals separated upon completion of an enlistment contract but who are "ineligible for, barred from, or otherwise denied reenlistment."

A "cross-reference" chart, provided by officials from the separations branch at the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, shows that generally an "RE-3" is the appropriate RE code for individuals who receive an SPD code of JCC.  However, that same chart shows that individuals discharged under QMP will receive an RE Code of 4.

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 Board notes that the RE-4 is consistent with the basis for his separation and in this case finds no basis to correct the existing code.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for that separation were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

3.  The applicant has failed to show, through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record, that his separation under QMP which resulted in his receiving an RE code of RE "4" was in error or unjust.  

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.

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

_mm____  __cg___  ___mb__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002079217	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030422	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19960731	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .635-200, 16-8	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	4	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.