RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           27 January 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003088886


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Edmund P. Mercanti            |     |Analyst              |


  The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Arthur A. Omartian            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Lester Echols                 |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Yolanda Maldonado             |     |Member               |

      The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his Reentry (RE) code be
changed to one which would allow him to reenlist.  He also requests that
his rank, pay grade E-5, be reinstated.

2.  The applicant states that he was honorably discharged from the Regular
Army, and honorably discharged from the Army Reserve.  As such, the
assignment of an RE code which requires a waiver to reenlist is an obvious
error and should be removed.

3.  The applicant does not provide any documents in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 September 1962.

2.  He was awarded the military occupational specialty of armor crewman,
was assigned to Fort Hood, Texas, and was promoted to pay grade E-5.

3.  On 17 September 1965, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment
(NJP) under Article 15, Uniformed Code of Military Justice, for failure to
repair.  His punishment consisted of a reduction from pay grade E-5 to pay
grade E-4 (suspended 30 days) and 15 days of extra duty.

4.  On 21 September 1965, the suspension was vacated and the applicant was
reduced from pay grade E-5 to E-4.

5.  On 21 September 1965, the applicant’s commander entered a certificate
(memorandum for record) into the applicant’s military records.  In that
certificate it was stated that he gave the applicant a fair rating because
of his extremely poor attitude.  His commander continued that the applicant
had been late for work formations several times, for which he was given
reprimands and told what would occur if he continued to be late.  When he
continued to be late for formation, he was given NJP which imposed a
punishment of a reduction in grade.  However, that reduction was suspended
for the time the applicant had left on active duty, a period of 30
days.  The day after the applicant accepted the NJP, he was charged with
driving on post without a post sticker and for driving without a license.
Based on those infractions, the suspension of the reduction in grade was
vacated and the applicant was reduced from pay grade E-5 to pay
grade E-4.

6.  Also on the same date, the applicant’s commander notified him of his
intent to bar him from reenlistment.  The reasons given for the bar were
his several letters of indebtedness for long overdue bills, a long record
of traffic violations, persistent tardiness for formation, sloppy
appearance, and reduced efficiency.

7.  The applicant submitted matters in his own behalf to be considered
prior to the bar to reenlistment being imposed.  The applicant stated that
as a result of not taking leave for 2 years, he began to become unstable.
He could see a change in his personality and character occurring, which
caused him to be thoughtless, to be unbalanced and to lose his sense of
responsibility for his job.  He sought to adjust himself by getting
married.  However, that only resulted in financial difficulties.  That is
when he “began to be a troublesome person to myself, to my platoon
sergeant, to my first sergeant, and to the company.”  The applicant signed
that statement when he was serving in pay grade E-4.

8.  On 22 September 1965, the appropriate authority approved the
applicant’s bar to reenlistment.

9.  The applicant was honorably discharged from the Regular Army and
transferred to the Army Reserve Control Group (Reinforcement) at the
expiration of his term of service.  His separation document shows that he
was separated in pay grade E-4.  Item 32, Remarks, of his separation
document states in pertinent part “Para 9 AR 601-210 Applies.”  On the top
of his separation document, the annotation “RE-3” is entered.

10.  Army Regulation 601-210, paragraph 9, is titled “Classes ineligible to
enlist or reenlist unless a waiver is granted.”

11.  Army Regulation 601-210, in effect today, chapter 4, states that
receipt of an NJP or having a bar to reenlistment in effect at the time of
separation are waivable disqualifications for enlistment.

12.  RE-3 indicates that a person was not qualified for continued Army
service, but the disqualification is waivable.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant committed two offenses during the period his reduction
from pay grade E-5 to E-4 was suspended.  Those offenses were a valid basis
for vacating the suspension of his reduction.  The applicant has not
submitted any evidence or argument which would show that his reduction was
in error or unjust.  In the absence of such evidence, there is insufficient
basis in which to void that reduction in grade.

2.  The applicant accepted NJP and had a bar to reenlistment in effect at
the time of his separation, both of which are waivable disqualifications
for enlistment.  As such, the assignment of an RE-3 was appropriate.
Without evidence to show that his reduction was an error or injustice,
there is insufficient evidence in which to grant the applicant’s request to
change his RE code to a code which would make him eligible to reenlist.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___le____  ____aao__  ____ym____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.





            _________Arthur A. Omartian_________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2003088886                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20030127                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |100.03                                  |
|2.                      |133.01                                  |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |