PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           14 MARCH 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001062884

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.  

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that his RE (Reenlistment Eligibility) Code of “4” be changed to RE-2.  He states he is attempting to return to the Army as a chaplain. He notes that his “discharge and disability are due to Raynaud’s Disease” and that it does not adversely affect his ability to work outdoors year round and will not adversely “hamper” his ability to function effectively as an Army chaplain.  He states that he does not understand why his Raynaud’s Disease resulted in his discharge, or why he received an RE-4.  He notes that because of the “error” he is precluded from returning to military service.  He maintains that “Raynaud’s Disease does not warrant” an RE-4.  The applicant does not submit any evidence in support of his request.  He does note on his application that he is a “disabled veteran” and has a 20 percent service connected disability rating from the VA.

3.  Records available to the Board indicate he entered active duty on 13 January 1989 for a period of 4 years.  

4.  A Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), conducted in January 1991, found that the applicant “has been having problems with painful changes in hand color and sensation which he has been noticing with exposure to cooler temperature 60 degrees or lower.”  His chief complaint was “pain and numbness involving both hands.”  He was diagnosed with Raynaud’s Disease and issued a permanent P-4 profile.  His profile precluded “prolonged exposure to cold longer than 30 minutes” and required him to wear gloves if temperature was less than 40.  The MEB recommended referral to a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).  The applicant concurred with the findings and recommendation of the MEB.

5.  On 4 February 1991 an informal PEB concluded that the applicant’s condition prevented “reasonable performance of duties required by grade and military specialty” and found him unfit for continued military service with a disability rating of 20 percent.  The applicant concurred with the findings and recommendation of the PEB and waived entitlement to a formal hearing.

6.  On 22 February 1991 the applicant was discharged as a result of physical disability and received over $3000.00 in severance pay.  Item 27 (Reentry Code) reflects “4” and item 26 (Separation Code) reflects “JFL.”

7.  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.

8.  RE-4 applies to individuals who were separated from their last period of service with a nonwaivable disqualification.  RE-3 applies to individuals who were not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at the time of separation, but the disqualification is waivable.  RE-2 applied to individuals who were separated prior to completing their enlistment contract, but who did not contemplate reenlistment.  As of 1995 the RE-2 was no longer in use by the Army.

9.  Army Regulation 601-280, in effect at the time the applicant was separated from active duty, noted that soldiers being separated for physical disability with entitlement to receive disability severance pay were ineligible for immediate reenlistment, however, they were eligible to apply for RA enlistment at a later date.  Separation by reason of physical disability was not one of the categories which was considered among the “nonwaivable disqualifications” listed in paragraph 2-21 of Army Regulation 601-280.  As such RE-3 would have been the appropriate RE Code for the applicant at the time of his 1991 separation.

10.  Additionally, Army Regulation 635-5-1 states that SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations, which identify reasons for, and types of separation from active duty.  The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation.  They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DOD and the military services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data.  It notes that “JFL” is the appropriate SPD code for individuals separated by reason of disability who received severance pay.

11.  A “cross-reference” chart, provided by officials from the separations branch at the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, confirms that “RE-3” is the appropriate RE Code for individuals who receive an SPD code of JFL.

12.  Army Regulation 135-100 lists the eligibility and qualification requirements for appointment as an Army chaplain.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Although the applicant contends that he does not understand why his Raynaud’s Disease resulted in his discharge, or an RE-4, the evidence indicates that he concurred with the findings and recommendations of the MEB and PEB, which ultimately resulted in his separation by reason of physical disability and entitlement to disability severance pay.

2.  However, the Board does note that while the evidence indicates that the applicant was not entitled to an RE-2, his RE-4 was incorrect and should have been an RE-3.  The Board is aware that correcting this item on the applicant’s DD Form 214 may or may not make him eligible to be an Army chaplain.  He is advised to contact his local recruiting office to determine eligibility and qualification requirements.

3.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by changing the applicant’s RE-4 on his 1991 DD Form 214 to reflect RE-3.

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__JHL___  __WTM     __RWA  _  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		___Joann H. Langston___
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001062884	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020314	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.03	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.