APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That her DD Form 214, Certificate of Release from Active Duty, be corrected to add the Army Achievement Medal, the Good Conduct Medal and the Sharpshooter Badge with rifle bar.  She also requests that her USAR statutory service obligation (SSO) be terminated and her reentry (RE) code be changed.  (She does not indicate what the RE code should be changed to.)

APPLICANT STATES:  That documents supporting her requested changes are included with her application.

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

She enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years on 12 November 1986 and was honorably separated and transferred to the USAR on 11 November 1989 for completion of her SSO.  At separation, the termination date of her SSO was established as 23 October 1994 (8 years minus the years, months and days spent in the active service) and she was assigned RE Code 1.

Her military awards included the Army Service Ribbon, the Army Lapel Button and the Marksman Badge with rifle bar. (In response to her application, the US Army Reserve Personnel Center (ARPERCEN) determined that she should also have been awarded the Army Achievement Medal, the Good Conduct Medal and the Sharpshooter Badge with rifle bar instead of the Marksman Badge.  Accordingly, on 27 June 1996 she was issued a DD Form 215, Correction to DD Form 214, reflecting authorization for the aforementioned awards.)

Upon separation from active duty she joined a USAR unit in order to satisfy her SSO.  Prior to reaching the termination date of that commitment (23 October 1994), however, she was found to be medically disqualified and was honorably discharged from the USAR effective 11 July 1991.

Army Regulation 135-91, Service Obligations, provides in pertinent part, that a military separation due to a discharge, dismissal or being dropped from the rolls of the Army terminates a soldier’s SSO.

Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and USAR Enlistment Program, governs the eligibility criteria for enlistment of prior service personnel and the assignment of RE codes.  It provides, generally, that RE codes are assigned to provide an assessment of the individual’s active service and regulate reentry into the service.  Notwithstanding the RE code, all other entrance criteria must be met or properly waived for reenlistment to occur.

Army Regulation 635-5, the regulation governing the preparation of DD Form 214, pertinently provides that the purpose of the DD Form 214 is to provide the individual with documentary evidence of active military service and to furnish a record for interested government agencies which assist the individual in obtaining the rights and benefits which may accrue as the result of such service.  All entries, other than personal data, will apply to the current period of service except as specifically noted.

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 awards she requested to be added to her DD Form 214 have been added by the ARPERCEN.

2.  Her request that the termination date of her SSO (23 October 1994) be changed to coincide with her discharge date from the USAR (11 July 1991) is, as of this late date, a moot point since both dates have elapsed.  However, changing this date on the DD Form 214 would not be appropriate since the date of her discharge from the USAR did not occur until after the time period covered by the DD Form 214.

3.  Changing the RE code would not be appropriate either.  (While the applicant does not say so, it is presumed that she desires the RE code be changed to a less favorable one in consideration of her physical condition.)  The RE code she was assigned was based on performance and potential for reenlistment demonstrated during the period of service covered by the DD Form 214.  The RE code alone is not sufficient to effect a reenlistment.  Other criteria, such as physical fitness must also be within acceptable limits for reenlistment to happen.  There is no reason, therefore, to change the RE code to a less favorable one since her  acceptability for reenlistment can only be established at the time she attempts to reenlistment.  In the absence of the individual attempting to reenlist, the RE code serves no practical purpose.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there appears to be 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