2.  The applicant requests his Bar to Re-enlistment be revoked and that he be able to re-enlist in the Army.

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was stationed in Nuernberg, Germany as a 91C (Practical Nurse).  He volunteered to transfer to another unit in order to go to Saudi Arabia but had to be classified as a 91B (Medical Specialist) which was his second MOS.  Upon returning from Saudi Arabia his unit was chosen for deactivation and he was assigned to MEDDAC, Ft. Riley.  He was allowed a 30 day leave due to wife’s post-partum condition and to allow his family to travel with him.  Wife is a German National who spoke no English with two small children.

4.  Records available to the Board show that the applicant was born on 
5 February 1959 in Wiesbaden, Germany.  On 19 March 1976 he enlisted in the Army Reserve and was awarded MOS 84B10 (Still Photo Specialist).  On 
28 June 1976, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army, in MOS 91B10 (Medical Specialist).  On 27 June 1980, applicant was honorably discharged and transferred to the Army Reserve.  He again enlisted in the Regular Army on 
28 April 1981, for 3 years in MOS 91C10 (Patient Care Specialist).  On 
28 April 1984, applicant transferred to the Army Reserve until 6 October 1985 and was honorably discharged.  On 4 November 1985 he enlisted in the Regular Army for the 3rd time, was promoted to paygrade E-6 on 2 November 1987, and was discharged on 27 July 1992 with an Honorable Discharge.  Applicant served a total of 13 years, 8 months, and 24 days of total active federal service.

5.  On 16 August 1991, during in-processing at Ft. Riley, applicant was informed of a new regulation requiring all 91Cs to have their Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN) license by October 1992 or be re-classified.  Applicant made arrangements, with the state of Kansas, to take the test in April 1992 to allow time for military school transcripts to arrive and also because this was the next available test date.  The LPN test was only offered twice a year, April and August.

6.  On 24 January 1992, the applicant received his 1st counseling statement, and a flagging action was initiated for not having a current LPN license.

7.  On 27 January 1992, applicant received another counseling statement for not having a current LPN license.

8.  Applicant alleges, in effect, that he experienced conflicts with the Chief Wardmaster (a MSG), it seems she had problems with the applicant being originally from Germany and therefore wanted to remove applicant from his duty position.  However, the Head Nurse (a LTC) supported the applicant’s efforts which was resented by the Chief Wardmaster.

9.  Applicant then, after alleged threats of court-martial and Leavenworth from the Chief Wardmaster and being refused an appointment with the Company Commander, went to the local Inspector General (IG).  The IG suggested that the applicant speak to the Staff Judge Advocate who allegedly assured the applicant that his command could do nothing to him because there was nothing derogatory in his 201 file.

10.  On 18 February 1992, applicant received a Letter of Appreciation from the Head Nurse of the Ward (a LTC) for being awarded “Ward of the Month” due to the applicant’s initial efforts in reorganizing the ward completely.

11.  On 26 April 1992, after receiving orders, he reported to the Separation Transfer Point where his records were screened and then asked and scheduled to re-enlist by a Major.

12.  On 27 April 1992, the applicant received a Letter of Reprimand from his Company Commander for inconsistencies in his personnel file.  Applicant’s record did not support the basis for the Letter of Reprimand because applicant’s social security number is consistent throughout his record, civil court documents dated 8 October 1979, indicate applicant’s name change was legal and a second court document indicates the correct spelling of the applicant’s name.  Applicant was awarded both MOS 91B and 91C and served in both.

13.  On 4 May 1992, flag is removed from records.  On 13 May 1992
applicant returns to the Separation Transfer Point and is told that the flag had been removed and he can still re-enlist.

14.  On 14 May 1992, a Bar to Re-enlistment is imposed on the applicant for the following items:  24 Jan 92, Counseling, Flag imposed, no license; 
27 Jan 92, Counseling, No Nursing license; 28 Jan 92, Memorandum, No Nursing license; 27 Apr 92, Letter of Reprimand.

15.  Army Regulation (AR) 601-280, para 6-5(i), in effect, states that after placing an approved Bar to Reenlistment certificate in the soldier’s 201 file, the company, detachment, or comparable commander of the unit to which the soldier is assigned, or attached for duty and administration, will continue documented evaluation of the soldier.  Approved bars to reenlistment will be reviewed by the proper unit commander at least each 6 months after the date of approval, and 30 days before the soldier’s scheduled departure from the unit or separation from the service.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Applicant received two counseling statements in January 1992 before he was able to take the LPN license test in April 1992.  It is noted that he was not required to be licensed until October 1992.

2.  Applicant received a Letter of Appreciation during same time period of counseling statements.

3.  There does not appear to be a basis for the applicant’s 27 April 1992 LOR as his records appear to support his name correction, MOS(s) and SSN.

4.  Applicant received Bar to Reenlistment right before he was scheduled to 
re-enlist.  The Bar to Reenlistment cited the two counseling statements (3 days apart), a 28 January 1992 Memorandum (no record of in applicant’s records) and the Letter of Reprimand.  There was no further documentation of evaluation of the soldier per AR 601-280, para 6-5(i).

5.  Records available to this Board indicate that applicant had superior ratings on his EERs before arriving at Ft Riley.

6.  It appears the Bar to Reenlistment (containing the two counseling statements, the 28 January 1992 Memorandum and the Letter of Reprimand) action taken by his chain of command was unwarranted since no significant evidence exists to back up chain of command’s allegations towards the applicant.

7.  In view of the foregoing findings and conclusions, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records, but only as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the Bar to Re-enlistment, dated 14 May 1992, Letter of Reprimand, dated 27 April 1992, Counseling Statement, dated 24 January 1992, Flagging Action dated 24 January 1992, Counseling Statement, dated 
27 January 1992, and Lifting of Flag Action, dated 4 May 1992 be removed from applicant’s records.

2.  That item 27 on DD Form 214 be changed to reflect RE-Code 1A.

3.  That applicant be allowed to re-enlist into the Regular Army in the paygrade of E-6 within 120 days of this action being approved providing he is physically and morally qualified.

BOARD VOTE:  

                       GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION




		                                   
		        CHAIRPERSON