MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  26 June 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002080119

	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. Walter T. Morrison		Chairperson	
	Mr. Lawrence Foster		Member	
	Mr. Lester Echols		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 Reentry (RE) Code of "3" be changed to RE "1" in order to reenlist in the Regular Army (RA).

APPLICANT STATES:  While on leave, during the month of March 2002, she was socializing with her friends and made a decision to place a tattoo on the left side of her neck, which was the biggest mistake.  She was unaware of the rules and regulations concerning the Army's policy on tattoos.  She entered the RA at the age of 17 and was honorably discharged due to her mistake.  At this time, she is requesting that the Board consider her request and change her RE Code to RE "1."  She is desperately attempting to remove the tattoo in order to reestablish her career as a soldier.  In support of her application, she submits a copy of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

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

At the age of 17, she enlisted in the Rhode Island Army National Guard (RIARNG) on 27 August 1999, as a military policeman.  She was ordered to active duty for training (ADT) on 18 May 2000.  She was released from ADT on 22 September 2000 and was returned to the RIARNG to complete her remaining service obligation. 

At the age of 18, she enlisted in the RA on 20 April 2001.  

On 4 April 2002, she was counseled by her team leader in regards to her professional growth and development.  He stated that during the month of March 2002, while on leave she experienced financial problems.  She also obtained a tattoo on her neck that was unauthorized.   After discovering that the tattoo was unauthorized she attempted to call her team leader, who was unavailable.  She was later informed to sit back and wait for the commanders' decision.

On 18 April 2002, the applicant was counseled by her first sergeant in regards to the tattoo on her neck that was prohibited by regulation.  She was referred to the commander for further action.  

On 18 April 2002, the applicant was counseled in writing by her commander for her inappropriate tattoo on the left side of her neck that was prohibited.  She was informed that the medical command would remove such tattoos when assistance is requested and removal is command-referred. However, the Army may elect not to provide that service to any soldier who voluntarily has a tattoo or brand that was in violation of this policy.  Removal frequently requires 5-8 treatment sessions with 4-6 weeks between sessions and complete removal may take several months.  Refusal could be subject to adverse administrative action, to include discharge.

On 18 April 2002, she acknowledged receipt of her formal counseling.  She stated that she would seek medical advice and return her decision at a later date.

On 25 April 2002, the applicant responded in writing.  She stated that she did not realize that her tattoo would hinder her career.  She was afraid of any procedure, not knowing the outcome, and declined.  She apologized to the military and hoped that her command would take in consideration their decision upon her as a soldier.  

On 10 June 2002, the applicant was notified by her commander that she was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, chapter 14, for minor disciplinary infractions.  His reasons for the proposed action were: while on leave, the applicant received a tattoo that was not incompliance with military regulations and when given the opportunity to have it removed, the applicant refused.

The applicant consulted with counsel, waived her rights, and elected to submit a statement in her own behalf.  She stated that she recently went home on leave and made an unfortunate accidental choice to have a tattoo placed on her neck.  She received the tattoo for the love and dedication of her mother.  However, she was unaware that it was prohibited.  She apologized to her chain of command that she did not take the time to investigate military regulations before she made her decision.  She is now asking that her dedication and hard work as a soldier be considered.  She requests that she be issued an Honorable Discharge with an RE Code of RE "1."  She also stated that she gave her all to her 3 years of service and that her tattoo would be removed in the future.   

On 11 June 2002, the commander submitted his recommendation to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for minor disciplinary infractions.

On 13 June 2002, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that she be issued an Honorable Discharge.  The applicant was discharged on 15 July 2002.  She had a total of 1 year, 2 months, and 26 days of creditable service.  She was issued an RE Code of RE "3."

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, patterns of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, and convictions by civil authorities.  Action will be taken to separate a member for 

misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a soldier discharged under this chapter.  A characterization of honorable may be approved by the commander exercising general court-martial jurisdiction, or higher, unless authority is delegated. 

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 persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the 
disqualification is waivable for reenlistment after a 2-year period has elapsed since discharge.  

RE-1 applies to persons completing their term of service (ETS) who are considered qualified to reenter the Army.

A 31 December 1998, message on the Army Tattoo Policy states that soldiers are not authorized to cover tattoos or brands in an attempt to be in compliance with Army Policy.  Small inconspicuous, or inoffensive tattoos or brands on areas of the body other than the face, neck, or head are not prohibited.  There are two conditions for prohibition of tattoos in uniform:  (1) that a tattoo is visible; and 2) that it detracts from a soldierly appearance.  The presence of the first condition, by itself, does not constitute a violation of the tattoo policy.  The Medical Command is prepared to assist in removing those tattoos or brands that do not comply with this policy.  It will remove such tattoos or brands when the soldier requests assistance in removal and the soldier is command-referred.  After the date of this message, the Army may elect not to provide that service to any soldier who voluntarily has a tattoo or brand that is in violation of this policy.  Removal frequently required 5-8 treatment sessions with 4-6 weeks between sessions and complete removal may take several months.  Refusal could be subject to adverse administrative action, to include discharge.  Commanders should ensure that soldiers understand the policy and provided opportunity to seek medical advice about the process of removal and associated risks.  Commanders should not order soldier to remove tattoos or brands.  

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 evidence of record shows that the applicant enlisted in the RA at the age of 18 and was approximate 20 years of age at the time she made her decision to receive a tattoo on her neck.  Apparently, she was not aware of the rules and regulations concerning the Army's policy on tattoos.  She was counseled by her command and was provided the opportunity to have her tattoos removed by medical personnel, but refused.  She elected to separate and was honorably discharged and issued an RE Code of RE "3."

2.  The Board notes that the RE "3" is consistent with the basis for her separation and in this case finds no basis to correct the existing code.  

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

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

5.  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.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
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

__wm___  ___lf__  __le____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002080119	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030626	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	20020715	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, chapter 14-12a	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	4	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.