APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his discharge be upgraded from a general discharge (GD) to an honorable discharge and codes removed. APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that his discharge was in error because he was not afforded proper rehabilitation to overcome a deficiency, that he was forced into his actions by his commander and unit social workers. EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show: He was born on 8 June 1966. He completed 12 years of formal education. On 27 December 1990, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years. He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 91B10 (Medical Specialist). The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-3. On 11 September 1992, the applicant was formally counseled for being absent from his place of duty without proper authority for 2 days. The applicant was counseled on the basis of this action and advised of his rights. On 25 September 1992, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 8 to 10 September 1992. His imposed punishment was 14 days extra duty and a reduction to pay grade E-2 (suspended for 6 months). On 15 December 1992, the applicant accepted an NJP, under Article 15, UCMJ, for disobeying a lawful order. His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-1 and a forfeiture of $392 pay. On 17 December 1992, a report of physical status and mental status evaluation indicates that the applicant had no physical or mental defects sufficient to warrant separation through medical channels. That the report also indicated that the applicant was mentally responsible, could distinguish right from wrong, and adhere to the right. On 19 December 1992, the applicant was notified that his commander was initiating separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct. The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him. The applicant waived personal appearance, consideration, and representation by counsel before a board of officers. He was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf, however, the statement is missing from his file. On 6 January 1993, the applicant was barred from reenlistment. The bar from reenlistment was based on applicant’s failure to follow orders and for being AWOL. The unit commander counseled the applicant in writing on the basis of this action and his rights. The applicant did not appeal the bar to reenlistment nor did he submit a statement in his behalf. The separation authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a GD. On 8 March 1993, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-1 under the provisions of Army Regulations 635-200, chapter 14, misconduct (a pattern of misconduct). He had completed 2 years, 2 months and 12 days of creditable active service. He was authorized the Army Achievement Medal with one Oakleaf Clover, the National Defense Service Medal and the Army Service Ribbon. The applicant was given an RE code of 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, convictions by civil authorities, desertion or absence without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed. 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. Certain persons who have received nonjudicial punishment are so disqualified, as are persons with bars to reenlistment, and those discharged under the provisions of chapters 9, 10, 13, and 14 of Army Regulation 635-200. 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. 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 the aforementioned requirement. 2. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. 3. The applicant was assigned a reentry code in accordance with regulations then in effect. 4. There appears to be no basis for removal or waiver of that disqualification which established the basis for the RE code. 5. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. 6. In view of the circumstances in this case, 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