MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:           20 May 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002083071

	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. Walter Avery, Jr.		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Chairperson	
	Ms. Deborah S. Jacobs		Member	
	Mr. Jose A. Martinez		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 his reentry eligibility (RE) code be changed to a “2.”

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he is requesting his RE-4 code be upgraded because it is unjust and prevents him from reentering the service.
He cannot enlist in the Army and continue his career because of a Department of the Army imposed bar to reenlistment.  The basis for the bar to reenlistment was two noncommissioned officer evaluation reports (NCOER) and a letter of reprimand.  He notes that one NCOER evaluated him for a position he had never held before or trained for. The second NCOER improperly mentions his receipt of a letter of reprimand.  He recalls the incidents leading up to his receipt of the letter of reprimand.  He was unaware that his company commander had put out, in formation, that personal weapons were not allowed at an upcoming trip to a range.  Therefore, he took his personal weapon, an AR-15.  He restates that he was not present when the order was given.  It was simply a misunderstanding between the commander and himself.  The commander had a personal vendetta against him.  He did not fight the letter of reprimand because his commander was making things difficult and said he would see his rebuttal before sending it forward.  He figured he was better off not sending anything and just doing his best to overcome the incident and be the best possible soldier he could be.  He transferred to a new unit where he performed very well.  He requests the Board review his appeal packet.  He has but one wish, to retire from active federal service.

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

He entered the Active Guard and Reserve program on 10 July 1988 in military occupation specialty, 63B, light wheel vehicle mechanic.

On 3 June 1995, the applicant received a general officer signed letter of reprimand.  It stated that on 1 April 1995, the applicant took his personal weapon for use during annual training after being told by both his company commander and first sergeant not to do so.  When asked to identify the weapon, the applicant falsely stated that it was a unit weapon.

On 22 June 1995, the applicant acknowledged he had read the letter of reprimand and understood the unfavorable information presented against him and did not elect to make a statement or submit documents on his behalf.

On 29 January 1998, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification of his selection for bar to reenlistment under the qualitative management program (QMP).  He indicated that he would appeal.

Submitted with his appeal were numerous letters of support.  After receipt of the letter of reprimand the applicant transferred to a new unit.  This new chain of command was unanimous in their support for the approval of his appeal.

On 15 August 1998, the separation authority rendered his decision on the applicant’s appeal.  He noted that the applicant’s appeal possessed unanimous support of his company battalion, and major subordinate command commanders as well as civilian and military peers and/or Full Time Unit superiors.  All described the applicant’s outstanding performance.  Finally he noted the applicant’s response disputed the two lackluster NCOERs and his admission of poor judgment in his receipt of a general officer memorandum of reprimand.  After weighing all the information presented and considering that only the best qualified soldiers perform in the Active Guard and Reserve program, his decision was not to support the applicant’s appeal.

Accordingly, at the grade of E-7, he was honorably separated on 3 May 1999 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 4, with a Separation Program Designator (SPD) of JBK and an RE code of 4.  He had a total of 17 years, 0 months, and 28 days of active creditable service.

There is no indication in the available records to show that the applicant appealed the NCOERs to the Enlisted Special Review Board (ESRB).

AR 635-5, Table 2-2, SPD/RE Cross Reference Table, states that RE-4 will be used when the SPD code is JBK.

RE-4 applies to persons separated from service with a non-waivalbe disqualification.  This includes anyone with a Department of the Army imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation.  They are ineligible for enlistment.

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.  The applicant’s primary contention is that he was unfairly given a general officer signed letter or reprimand that was based on the actions of a company commander with an agenda against him.  The applicant has submitted no evidence to support his contention.  However, a reading of the letter of reprimand indicates that besides the company commander, the first sergeant also told the applicant of the new personal weapon policy.  Most significantly, that when confronted, the applicant was untruthful.  In addition, the applicant received a general officer signed letter of reprimand.  It is extremely unlikely the company commander influenced the general’s decision.  In fact, two separate general officers, with access to all pertinent information, concluded the applicant was deserving of adverse administrative actions.

2.  The applicant made reference to the correctness of two NCOERs.  His records do not reflect he appealed them to the ESRB; therefore, the Board will take no action.

3.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.

4.  The Board carefully reviewed the applicant’s records and determined that his RE-4 code is the appropriate code for his discharge.

5.  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.

6.  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:

___dsj___  ___jam__  ____mhm  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002083071	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20030520	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION		
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	179	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.