APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his reentry (RE) code of RE-3 be corrected to an RE code of RE-1.

APPLICANT STATES:  He was assigned the wrong RE code either in error or unjustly.  He was discharged in pay grade E-5, was on the promotion list, and did not have any lost time.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 September 1981, was awarded the military occupational specialty of administrative specialist, served continuously, and was promoted to pay grade E-5 and recommended to be promoted to pay grade E-6.  

On 31 January 1994 the applicant’s commander requested authority to retain the applicant beyond the expiration of his term of service (ETS) due to his being named as a respondent in an Article 86 investigation (an investigation conducted to determine the reason for an individual’s AWOL), and the expectation that the investigation and resultant court-martial would go beyond his ETS.

On 7 February 1994 a phone conversation took place which was recorded on an OF 271, Conversation Record, which shows that the applicant’s command had contacted higher headquarters for guidance on the applicant’s status.  He had been scheduled to ETS on 1 February 1994 but had departed AWOL on 27 January 1994.  The higher headquarters directed that instead of going though the trouble of bringing the applicant back to his unit, to discharge him in absentia.

Accordingly, on 7 February 1994 he was honorably discharged due to completion of his required service.  His DD Form 214 shows that he had served 12 years, 5 months and 5 days of active duty and was assigned an RE code of RE-3.

The applicant’s DA Form 2A, Personnel Qualification Record, item 33, Reenlistment Eligibility/Ineligibility, is coded ineligible and lists a transaction code of “9W”.  Army Regulation 680-29 specifies that transaction code “9W” means that the individual is ineligible for reenlistment due to the individual’s acceptance of nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ.

RE-3 indicates that a person was not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.  However, under today's standards, the Department has imposed strict enlistment standards to meet the reduced demands of the Army and a very limited number of waivers are being granted. 

RE-3B indicates that a person had lost time during his last enlistment.

Army Regulation 27-10, paragraph 3-37, specifies that the report of proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ, is filed locally in unit files, and is destroyed at the end of 2 years, for soldiers in pay grade E-4 and below.  For noncommissioned officers, the report of proceedings is filed in either the performance portion or the restricted portion of the soldier’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), as designated by the commander imposing the punishment.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  It appears that the applicant was assigned a code of 
RE-3 due to his receiving nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ.  Although the proceedings under Article 15 is not contained in the applicant’s records, it is presumed that he was given an Article 15 and it was either locally filed and destroyed (if he received it prior to his being promoted to pay grade E-5) or it is contained in the restricted portion of his OMPF, which was not provided to the Board.

2.  In addition, despite the absence of lost time being listed on the applicant’s DD Form 214, the fact that his command was conducting an Article 86 investigation on his unauthorized absence prior to his ETS and the fact that he was not available to sign his DD Form 214 both show that he was AWOL at the time of his separation.  As such, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that he should have also been assigned a code of RE-3B.

3.  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

                       DENY APPLICATION




						Karl F. Schneider
						Acting Director