MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            28 February 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001064301

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

| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | | Director
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | | Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | | Chairperson
| Ms. Celia L. Adolphi | | Member
| Mr. John T. Meixell | | Member

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That the Reentry (RE) Code of 3C on his report of separation (DD Form 214) be changed to a more favorable code that will allow him to enlist.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he received a RE Code of 3C because he was reduced in grade as a result of nonjudicial punishment and was ineligible to reenlist without a waiver.  He goes on to state that he understands that the Army did not make a mistake in this matter; however, Air Force personnel are misinterpreting the regulation and contend that his separation code means that he was discharged for being a conscientious objector.  He further states that he has attempted to again enlist and has been informed that as a conscientious objector, he will never be allowed to enlist.  In support of his application he provides documents regarding the Air Force’s position in the matter as well as copies of the applicable regulations.

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

He enlisted on 16 June 1988 for a period of 3 years.  He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Germany on 5 November 1988 for duty as a Pershing missile crewman.  He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 December 1989. 

Although not present in the available records, his records do show that nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him on 11 February 1990, which resulted in his being reduced to the pay grade of E-3.

On 29 June 1991, he was honorably released from active duty in the pay grade of E-3, due to the expiration of his term of service (ETS).  He had served 3 years and 14 days of total active service and was issued a separation code of “LBK” and an RE Code of 3C.  He was transferred to the United States Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Reinforcement) to complete his statutory service obligation.  He was honorably discharged from the USAR on 18 June 1996.

The documents submitted by the applicant with his application consist of a copy of a training aid used by the Air Force Reserve Recruiters, which explains various service RE and Separation Codes.  Although it appears to be incomplete, it shows that the separation code for a conscientious objector is “KCM”.  It also explains that the RE Code of 3C applies to conscientious objectors.  

The applicant has also submitted a response from the Department of the Air Force to his congressional representatives in which the Department of the Air Force again contends that his RE Code denotes “Conscientious Objector.”

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 processing into the Regular Army and the USAR.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes.

RE-3C applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service at the time of separation, due to grade and service requirements at the time; however, the disqualification is waivable.  

Army Regulation 635-5 serves as the authority for the preparation of the DD Form 214.  It provides, in pertinent part, that at the time of separation from the service, a separation code will be entered in block 26 of the DD Form 214 that coincides with the narrative reason for separation in block 28.

Army Regulation 635-5-1 provides a listing of the applicable separation codes and narrative reasons for separation that are to be entered on the DD Form 214 at the time of separation.  It provides, in pertinent part, that for personnel who are being separated at ETS, the separation code of “LBK” will be used.  For personnel who are separated as a result of being a Conscientious Objector, the code of “KCM” will be used.

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 this requirement.

2.  Although the Board understands the applicant’s frustration in this matter, the Board does not have jurisdiction over other services nor can it dictate how they interpret regulations.

3.  The Board has reviewed the applicable regulations and has determined that his separation code, narrative reason for separation and RE Code are correctly reflected on his DD Form 214.  Accordingly, there is no error to correct and the Board finds that it would be inappropriate to change his RE Code simply because other services do not interpret the information of the DD Form 214 correctly.

4.  The applicant was never deemed a conscientious objector while in the Army and there is nothing in his records to suggest that such was the case.  Likewise, there is nothing in the applicable regulations to suggest that the information contained on his DD Form 214 portrays him as a conscientious objector.  His RE Code of 3C simply implies that he was not eligible to reenlist at the time of his ETS and that if the needs of the service so dictate, he could be granted a waiver of the disqualification.

5.  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

___jm___  __rvo____  ___cla __  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID | AR2001064301
SUFFIX |
RECON | YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED | 2002/02/28
TYPE OF DISCHARGE |
DATE OF DISCHARGE |
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY |
DISCHARGE REASON |
BOARD DECISION | DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY |
ISSUES         1.  4 | 100.0300/RE CODE
2. |
3. |
4. |
5. |
6. |