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 330th 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 300th 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