Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709554
Original file (9709554.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his reentry code of “3” be changed and that he be reinstated in the military.
APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he was treated unjustly. He tried to get a one-year extension at his Memphis, TN Active/Guard Reserve (AGR) attachment to help his 8-year old autistic son through one more year of school. He received no support from his chain of command. He wants to know how he can be given a reentry code of “3” without any reason.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant’s military records show:

He was born on 16 August 1955. He initially enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 February 1978 and was honorably discharged on 4 February 1981. He enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 29 June 1982 and entered the AGR program on 20 August 1988.

On 21 February 1994, the applicant was assigned to the 330 th Combat Support Hospital, Memphis, TN, where his autistic son received the required medical, learning and family support.

In June 1996, the U.S. Army Reserve Personnel Center notified the applicant that he was not in a valid position and was identified for reassignment.

The applicant applied to have his son enrolled in the Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP), which was approved on 19 June 1996.

On 11 July 1996, the applicant received orders reassigning him to the 300 th Military Police Command, Inkster, MI.

In August 1996, the applicant requested a one year extension at his current assignment. The request was disapproved based on a lack of justification by the soldier and the fact that the gaining area met the exceptional family member’s needs.

On 29 October 1996, the applicant requested a change of his report date to his new assignment from 27 January 1997 to 23 June 1997 so his children could finish the school year in Memphis.

On 1 November 1996, the applicant was promoted to Staff Sergeant, E-6.

On 27 January 1997, the applicant reported to his new assignment.
On 27 January 1997, the applicant requested a hardship discharge, which was approved.

On 26 February 1997, the applicant requested withdrawal of his hardship discharge.

On 7 March 1997, the applicant requested a compassionate reattachment back to his Memphis unit.

On 18 April 1997, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 6-3, hardship. He had completed 11 years, 7 months and 25 days of creditable active service and had no lost time. He received a reentry code of “3.”

Army Regulation 608-75 establishes policies, responsibilities and procedures for the Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP). Chapter 2 of that regulation states that, when possible, assignment managers will assign soldiers to an area where the special needs of their EFMs can be accommodated. Assignments will depend on the existence of valid personnel requirements for the soldier’s grade, military occupational specialty (MOS) code or specialty skill identifier, and eligibility for tour. All soldiers will remain eligible for worldwide assignments.

Army Regulation 614-200 provides policies and procedures for selection of enlisted personnel for assignment, details, transfers, and training. Paragraph 3-12 of that regulation states that one of the conditions that must be met before a compassionate reassignment will be approved is that a valid requirement must exist for the soldier’s grade and MOS at the desired location.

Army Regulation 140-30 prescribes the policy and procedures for the administration of the AGR Program. Chapter 4 of that regulation states that attachments and reattachments will be based on the needs of the Army with consideration given to AGR program requirements, position qualifications and successive attachments to positions of increased responsibility. Soldiers who accept a promotion to grades E-6 through E-9 consent to be reattached to a position calling for the higher grade to which promoted. Following acceptance of such promotions, enlisted soldiers may be attached to any AGR position in the higher grade to meet the needs of the Army. That chapter also states that a request for compassionate reassignment will be disapproved when a valid requirement does not exist at the desired location.

Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 6, states, in pertinent part, that a soldier may be separated for hardship when separation from the Service will materially affect the care or support of the family by alleviating undue and genuine hardship. The soldier may request withdrawal of the application at any time before the effective date. The separation authority, based on the evidence provided by the soldier, may, but need not, withdraw approval of the separation before its effective date.

Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned reentry (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 U.S. 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 “3” means ineligible for reenlistment, but the disqualification is waiverable.

Recruiting personnel have the responsibility for initially determining whether an individual meets current enlistment criteria. They are required to process a request for waiver under the provisions of Chapter 4, Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program. Therefore, since enlistment criteria does change, and since an individual has the right to apply for a waiver, the applicant should periodically visit his local recruiting station to determine if he should apply for a waiver.

 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 available records do not show and the applicant has not provided any convincing evidence to demonstrate that he was the victim of an injustice. He did not meet any of the requirements to either remain in or return to his Memphis, TN attachment.
2. The applicant requested a hardship discharge. Although he later requested that it be withdrawn, the appropriate authority made an authorized decision, based upon the circumstances of the applicant’s family problems, to keep the approval in effect.

3. The reentry code given was the correct one based upon the reason for discharge. The disqualification is waiverable if the applicant chooses to reenlist and if it is determined that his family problems have been so resolved as to make him eligible for worldwide assignment.

4. In view of the foregoing, there appears to be 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

 DENY APPLICATION




                                   Loren G. Harrell
                                                      Director

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709554C070209

    Original file (9709554C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his reentry code of “3” be changed and that he be reinstated in the military. He received a reentry code of “3.” Army Regulation 608-75 establishes policies, responsibilities and procedures for the Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP). Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned reentry (RE) codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076779C070215

    Original file (2002076779C070215.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    During the obligated period of service, the soldier will not apply for voluntary nondisability retirement unless the soldier is (a) eligible for retirement by completion 30 years or more active Federal service and (b) already eligible through prior service for a higher grade at retirement and (c) over 58 years of age. DISCUSSION : Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110020924

    Original file (20110020924.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    a. Paragraph 1-6 states the EFMP allows AHRC to consider the special education and medical needs of exceptional family members during the assignment process and reassigns Soldiers, when readiness does not require a specific reassignment, to an area where the family member's needs can be accommodated. The evidence shows the applicant complied with his assignment instructions and reported to Fort Huachuca as directed; however, he left his family in Hawaii due to his wife's enrollment in the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085049C070212

    Original file (2003085049C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    He was reenlisted on 28 January 2000 and reenlistment orders were dated 10 March 2000. The applicant is entitled to correction to his assignment date to the 94 th RSC from 10 March 2000 to 28 January 2000, the date of his reenlistment. This Board concludes that the applicant reenlisted as soon as he was notified of this requirement on 28 January 2000 and his assignment orders to the 94 th RSC should be corrected to this date.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075555C070403

    Original file (2002075555C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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. The Department of Defense Financial Management Regulation, Volume 7A, chapter 35 states that, among other reasons, service members separated at their own request or enlisted members...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130008379

    Original file (20130008379.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    f. The applicant's request was also for the dependents to complete state testing, which was through 13 May 2011, with the end of the school year date of 10 June 2011, not 5 July 2011. h. He cannot make clear enough that though the advisory opinion states the program has been in the JFTR since 2005 and he was finally able to see the ALARACT message in the August/September 2011 time frame, he has executed five PCSs since 2005 and he has never been apprised of the availability of the program. ...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140003713

    Original file (20140003713.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests that he be granted an exception to policy to receive basic allowance for housing (BAH) for his dependents located in Elk Grove, California instead of Fort Huachuca, Arizona. The applicant provides copies of email messages relating to his request for a BAH waiver, his wife’s enrollment in the EFMP, permanent change of station (PCS) and separation orders, Enlisted Record Brief, and copies of documents from his wife’s medical records. The applicant’s contention that he...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058334C070421

    Original file (2001058334C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT STATES : In effect, that he was unjustly denied the opportunity to withdraw his request for retirement under the Voluntary Early Retirement Program (VERP) and was forced to retire against his wishes. Meanwhile, it appears, based on the documents submitted by the applicant, that he submitted a request to withdraw his application for retirement on 9 January 1996. Although the applicant contended that he (his wife) had an unforeseen medical condition, the applicant has failed to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060211C070421

    Original file (2001060211C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 7 February 2001, the applicant submitted a formal personnel action request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 6, paragraph 6-5, due to dependency of a family member. He stated in his request that the applicant’s son required special attention due to an automobile accident, was confined to a wheelchair, and required constant care and supervision. The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant requested to be discharged under the provisions of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130020089

    Original file (20130020089.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 22 June 2010, the applicant's unit commander notified her that she was initiating action which could result in separation from the Army with a general discharge under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14-12(c), for commission of a serious offense. The applicant applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of her general discharge to an honorable discharge based upon her contentions that she had Family Care Plan issues before her misconduct and that she...