RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           11 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050000121


      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             |
|     |Ms. Wanda L. Waller               |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John Slone                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Deborah Jacobs                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Michael Flynn                 |     |Member               |

      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 reconsideration of an earlier request that item
         27 (Reenlistment Code) on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release
or Discharge from Active Duty) be changed to acceptable codes to reenlist.
He also now requests that item 26 (Separation Code) be changed.

2.  The applicant states he was unjustly railroaded into signing a bar to
reenlistment and he received no judicial or nonjudicial punishment at any
time.  He believes the lifetime bar to reenlistment placed against him was
vindictively applied, possibly in contravention to Army regulations.  He
states this action has affected his civilian employment opportunities and
assigning a reenlistment code of 4 with the separation code "KGF" (which he
contends is not a valid code) casts doubt on the validity of the bar.  He
goes on to state he contacted a recruiter in January 2004 and passed all
current requirements to enlist in the Army National Guard and he is
currently serving in a position of trust with the sheriff's department.


3.  The applicant provides current enlistment data for enlistment in the
Army National Guard; two character reference letters; and a letter, dated 6
December 2004, from a Member of Congress.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were
summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AC93-
13265, on
13 July 1994.

2.  The applicant provides an enlistment document, dated 3 June 2004; an
undated request for a waiver; an approved Adjutant General (AG) waiver for
enlistment in the Army National Guard, dated 16 March 2004; and a letter
revoking the approved AG waiver, dated 29 July 2004.

3.  The applicant provides a character reference letter, dated 16 February
2004, from a friend.  He attests that the applicant is a fine man with high
moral character and honesty, a solid family man, good neighbor and solid
citizen.

4.  The applicant provides a character reference letter, dated 20 February
2004, from his employer.  He attests that the applicant is reliable, has
high ethical and professional standards, is a conscientious and hardworking
individual, and a person of strong ethical and moral character.

5.  The applicant's submissions are new evidence which will be considered
by the Board.

6.  The applicant enlisted on 16 April 1985 and served as a tactical
transportation helicopter repairer.

7.  On 19 March 1987, the applicant was counseled for refusal to attend the
Primary Leadership Development Course (PLDC).  On 1 May 1987, a bar to
reenlistment was imposed against the applicant for refusal to attend the
PLDC.  On 13 May 1987, the applicant submitted a request to be separated
prior to the expiration of his term of service due to his inability to
overcome his local bar.  In that request the applicant acknowledged that he
understood that once separated he would not be permitted to reenlist at a
later date.

8.  The applicant was honorably discharged on 18 June 1987 under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5b, due to a locally
imposed bar to reenlistment.  He had served 2 years, 4 months, and 24 days
of creditable active service.

9.  Item 25 (Separation Authority) on the applicant's DD Form 214 shows the
entry, "AR [Army Regulation] 635-200, PARA [paragraph] 16-5b."  Item 26 on
his DD Form 214 shows the entry, "KGF."  Item 27 on his DD Form 214 shows
the entry, "RE 4."  Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) on his DD
Form 214 shows the entry, "LOCALLY IMPOSED BAR TO REENLISTMENT."

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 16 covers discharges caused by
changes in service obligations.  Paragraph 16-5 applies to personnel denied
reenlistment and provides that Soldiers who receive Department of the Army
imposed or locally imposed bars to reenlistment, and who perceive that they
will be unable to overcome the bar may apply for immediate discharge.
Incident to the request the member must state that he understands that
recoupment of unearned portions of any enlistment or reenlistment bonus is
required and that later reenlistment is not permitted.

11.  Army Regulation 601-280 prescribes the eligibility criteria and
options available in the Army Reenlistment Program.  Chapter 6 of that
regulation provides for barring from reenlistment individuals whose
continued active duty is not in the best interest of the military service.
This chapter specifies that bars will be used when immediate administrative
discharge from active service is not warranted.  Examples of rationale for
reenlistment disqualification include, but are not limited to, absent
without leave, indebtedness, recurrent nonjudicial punishment, slow
promotion progression, no demonstrated potential for future service, and
substandard performance of duties.

12.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes)
prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other
directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military
service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated
reasons.  The regulation, in effect at the time, states the reason for
discharge based on separation code “KGF” is “HQDA [Headquarters, Department
of the Army] imposed bar to reenlistment; or locally imposed bar to
reenlistment” and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 635-200,
paragraph 16-5a or b.

13.  There is no Separation Program Designator Code/Reentry Code Cross
Reference Table available for the time in question.  However, officials at
the Army Human Resources Command on 9 August 2005 revealed that a Soldier
with less than 18 years of active service and a 1987 separation date with a
local bar to reenlistment would receive a RE code of 3.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Evidence of record shows the applicant refused to attend PLDC which
demonstrated he had no potential for future service and the bar to
reenlistment was properly imposed against him.  There is no evidence of
record to support the applicant's contentions that he was unjustly
railroaded into signing a bar to reenlistment or the bar to reenlistment
was vindictively applied.

2.  The separation code used in the applicant's case is correct and was
applied in accordance with the applicable regulations.

3.  The applicant's RE code is incorrect.  Therefore, it would be
appropriate to correct item 27 on his DD Form 214 to show RE-3.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

JS______  DJ_____  MF______  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION


BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant partial relief in that the ABCMR’s decision in Docket Number AC93-
13265, dated 13 July 1994 should be amended.  As a result, the Board
recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual
concerned be corrected by amending item 27 on his DD Form 214 to show RE-3.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is
insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result,
the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to
amendment of item 26 on his DD Form 214.




            ___John Slone_________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050000121                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |19940713                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050811                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |100.0300                                |
|2.                      |100.0000                                |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]