MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           20 March 2003                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002083271

	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. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful 		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser 		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin 		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 from RE-3 to RE-1 or RE-1A.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he received unfair punishment for a minor error in judgment.  He contends that it seems as if he has been punished three times for the same offense.  He states, in effect, that he received an Article 15 with a reduction in rank for falsifying a sick slip, that he was discharged under Chapter 14 for the same offense and that he received a RE code of "3."    

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

The applicant enlisted on 8 November 1988 and served as a record telecommunications center operator.  

On 7 February 1994, the applicant's eligibility for access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) and his Top Secret security clearance were locally suspended due to allegations that he falsified a sick slip, stole funds from the coffee fund, had a severe personal indebtedness problem and that he lied about numerous other situations.  The applicant's eligibility for access to SCI and his security clearance were revoked on 14 December 1994.

On 9 February 1994, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for falsifying a sick slip.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3, a forfeiture of pay (suspended) and extra duty.

The applicant received adverse counseling statements for returned checks, indebtedness, forging a sick slip and a rehabilitative transfer. 

On 19 May 1995, the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct.  The company commander recommended that the applicant receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge and based his recommendation for separation on the fact that the applicant falsified an official document, his various financial problems and that his security clearance had been revoked wherein he could not perform his job.

On 14 June 1995, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted a conditional waiver of his right to an administrative separation board, contingent upon his receiving a general discharge.  

Three intermediate commanders recommended approval of the applicant's conditional waiver.  They concurred with the recommendation for separation and two members recommended that the applicant be discharged with a general discharge and one member recommended that he be discharged with an honorable discharge.
On 20 September 1995, the separation authority approved the applicant's conditional waiver.  He also directed that the applicant be discharged with an honorable discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for a pattern of misconduct.  

Accordingly, on 11 October 1995, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, for a pattern of misconduct.  The applicant had served 6 years, 11 months and 4 days of total active service and was issued a 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, a pattern 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.  However, the separation authority may direct a general discharge if such is merited by the soldier’s overall record.  Only a general court-martial convening authority may approve an honorable discharge or delegate approval authority for an honorable discharge under this provision of regulation.

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 processing into the Regular Army and the USAR.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes.

Paragraph 3-27 of Army Regulation 601-210 provides that RE codes may be changed only if they are determined to be administratively incorrect.

RE-1 applies to persons completing an initial term of active service who were fully qualified when last separated.  

RE-1A applies to soldiers separated prior to 28 February 1995 the effective date of Army Regulation 601-210.  This code will not be used after this date.  

RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable, such as personnel discharged for misconduct.

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 does not support the applicant's contention that he was discharged for falsifying a sick slip.  The applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for a pattern of misconduct.    
2.  The applicant was properly discharged in accordance with applicable regulations with no indication of any procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  The RE code used in the applicant’s case is correct and was applied in accordance with the applicable regulations.

4.  The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record sufficient justification for upgrading his RE code.  

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.

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

LLS____  CJP____  KWL_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002083271	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030320	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	 	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.0300	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.