MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            17 June 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002082625

	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	
	Ms. Deyon D. Battle		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Hubert O. Fry		Member	
	Ms. Marla J. Troup		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:  In two separate applications and four different letters, that her reentry eligibility (RE) code be changed to “a better one”.  She also requests reconsideration of her original request to have her narrative reason for separation changed.

APPLICANT STATES:  That her narrative reason for separation and the RE code that she received are inequitable because the decision used to issue them was based on one isolated incident and that she had no other adverse information in her record.  She states that no other investigation was initiated and that the Army just took her confession of homosexuality to be the truth.  She further states that it was never clearly explained to her how being issued an RE-4 code would impact her life or the consequences of being discharged based on homosexuality.  She states that the only evaluation that she underwent was a mental status evaluation and that no sexual evaluation was completed to determine if she was possibly involved sexually with anyone else.  She believes that some other means of investigation or evaluation should have been used to determine her sexuality while she was in the Army.  

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

On 1 May 2000, she enlisted in the Army at Fort Buchanan, Puerto Rico, for 4 years in the pay grade of E-1.  She enlisted for training in the motor transport operator military occupational specialty.

On 10 August 2000, while at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, the applicant’s commander referred her for a mental health evaluation.  The commander cited her confession to the Chaplain that she was a homosexual as a basis for the referral for evaluation.

The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on 14 August 2000.  The attending physician opined that the applicant was mentally responsible and that she had the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings.

On 23 August 2000, the applicant was counseled regarding her homosexual activity.  She was informed that she must refrain from homosexual activity during her term of enlistment.  She responded by expressing, in writing, that she disagreed with the counseling statement; that she would not refrain from homosexual activity; and that she intended to continue the same activities.

On 24 August 2000, the applicant was notified that she was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 623-200, chapter 15 based on homosexual admission.  The commander cited her statement declaring that she was a homosexual and that she would not refrain from and would continue to practice in homosexual activities as a basis for his recommendation for discharge.  She acknowledged receipt of the notification and she waived her rights and opted not to submit a statement in her own behalf.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 28 August 2000.  Accordingly, on 1 September 2000, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 636-200, chapter 15, based on homosexual admission.  She had completed 4 months and 1 day of total active service.  The character of service was uncharacterized and she was assigned an RE-4 code.

On 11 July 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for a change of her narrative reason for separation.

On 24 January 2002, this Board denied her request for a change of her narrative reason for separation.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 15 of that regulation states that homosexuality is incompatible with military service and provides, in pertinent part, for the separation of members who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a tendency to engage in homosexual conduct.  

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 code 4 Applies to persons not qualified for continued Army Service and the disqualification is not waivable.

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.  The applicant was separated and assigned a reentry code in accordance with the regulations then in effect.

3.  The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions.  However, in accordance with applicable regulations, she was discharged based on her homosexual admission.  There was no requirement for any investigation to be conducted once she admitted to being a homosexual and indicating during her counseling, that she would not refrain from homosexual activity while she was in the Army.  Her narrative reason for separation and her RE code are correct as currently reflected in her records and her RE code is not waivable.

4.  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

__fe ____  __hof ___  ___mt___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002082625	
SUFFIX		
RECON	20020124	
DATE BOARDED	2003/06/17	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UNCHAR	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	20000901	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Ch 16	
DISCHARGE REASON	606	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  606	144.5900	
2.  892	144.9422	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.