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

APPLICANT STATES:  That he is currently in college and attempted to enroll in the Army Reserve Officer’s Training Corps (ROTC).  However, he was told that he would have to obtain a waiver for his RE code, but waivers are not currently being considered.  He contends that he should not have been assigned a code of RE-3B.

In support of his request he submits letters from his USAR unit commander, an Assistant United States Attorney, and the pastor of his church.  He also submits letters of commendation he received for his work as a police officer.

Subsequent to the Board receiving the applicant’s request, he submitted a memorandum from the Second Region, Cadet Command, which certifies that the applicant had submitted a request for waiver of his RE-3B code.  His request for a waiver of his RE-3B code was denied on 24 September 1996.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 21 January 1987 and was awarded the military occupational specialty of power generator equipment repairer.  On 13 July 1987, while attending parachutist school in pay grade E-2, he departed AWOL and remained AWOL until 19 July 1987.  He was then promoted to pay grade E-4 and served in Saudi Arabia during Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm.  He was retained in the Army for the convenience of the Government during the duration of Operation Desert Storm.  He was honorably released from active duty at the expiration of his term of service (as extended) on 14 June 1991.  He had completed 4 years, 4 months and 18 days of active service, and had 7 days of lost time.

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 and the Army Reserve.  Chapter 3 of this regulation prescribes basic eligibility criteria for prior service applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes.

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

In the processing of this case, the staff of the Board found it necessary to contact the Second Region, Cadet Command, for additional information.  The Second Region stated that they do, in fact, consider waivers for enrollment in the ROTC, including disqualifications such as RE codes.  The Cadet Command advised that the applicant required two waivers to enroll.  One waiver for his RE-3B code and one because he exceeded the age limitations (he was 29 at the time).  The command determined that given his current age and record of AWOL he was not a good prospect for second lieutenant.

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.  The applicant’s RE code was properly assigned due to his lost time.

2.  Contrary to the applicant’s contention, the ROTC Command is and was processing waivers of RE codes.  The applicant had submitted a request for a waiver and that request was denied.

3.  The applicant’s post-service conduct is most impressive.  However, it must be assumed that he had submitted the same documentation he has submitted to the Board when he requested a waiver to enroll in the ROTC.  Obviously, the ROTC Command determined that his lost time and age outweighed his post-service conduct.  The decision to deny his request for a waiver does not appear to be inappropriate.

4.  The Board does not like to second guess field commanders when they make decisions of this nature.  The Board is satisfied that the applicant has had his “day in court” and no error or injustice exists in his case.

5.  In view of the foregoing, the 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