RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:                 13 OCTOBER 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:         AR20050001414


      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. Jessie B. Strickland          |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Ted Kanamine                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick McGann                |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Carol Kornhoff                |     |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 that the Narrative Reason for Separation and
Reentry (RE) Code on his report of separation (DD Form 214) be changed to a
more favorable reason and code.

2.  The applicant states that at the time he was young and stupid and chose
a method to get out of his commitment that is affecting his ability to
obtain employment as a peace officer.  He goes on to state that he was the
top graduate at his advanced individual training (AIT) class and made the
mistake of not accepting his National Security Agency (NSA) assignment and
instead ended up in Germany where his platoon sergeant threatened his life
after he lost a stripe due to an incident that occurred while he was on
guard duty.  He further states that he followed bad advice and saw no other
way, even though the diagnosis was bogus.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documents with his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 29 October 1987.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 21 January 2005.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  He was born on 29 June 1965 and enlisted in the New Jersey Army
National Guard (NJARNG) on 3 April 1985.  He served with the NJARNG until
he was honorably discharged on 10 April 1986 for enlistment in any
component of the Armed Forces.  He enlisted in the Regular Army in Newark,
New Jersey, on 30 July 1985, for a period of 3 years and training as an
electronic warfare signal intelligence non-communications interceptor.

4.  He completed his basic combat training at Fort Dix, New Jersey and his
AIT at Fort Devens, Massachusetts.  He was transferred to Germany on 16
February 1987 and was assigned to a military intelligence company.

5.  On 20 August 1987, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him
for dereliction in the performance of his duties in that he negligently
failed to stay alert while on guard duty by sitting in a vehicle reading a
book and listening to a radio.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to
the pay grade of E-2 (suspended for 45 days), extra duty and an oral
reprimand.  He appealed the punishment; however, his appeal was denied on
28 August 1987.

6.  Meanwhile, on 24 August 1987, the applicant underwent a mental status
evaluation and was diagnosed with a mixed personality disorder.  The
examining psychiatrist opined that the disorder was so severe that his
ability to function effectively in the military environment was
significantly impaired.

7.  On 2 September 1987, the applicant’s commander initiated a bar to
reenlistment against the applicant based on his disciplinary record and his
demonstrated poor job performance and inability to adapt to military life.
The applicant acknowledged the actions of the commander and declined to
submit a statement in his own behalf.  The appropriate authority approved
the local bar to reenlistment on 3 September 1987.

8.  On 10 September 1987, the applicant submitted a request for discharge
under the provisions of Army regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5, due to his
inability to overcome a locally imposed bar to reenlistment.  He also
indicated that he understood that if his request was approved, he would not
be permitted to reenter the service.

9.  The appropriate authority approved his request on 25 September 1987 and
directed that he be furnished an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

10.  Accordingly, he was honorably discharged on 29 October 1987, under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5b, due to a locally
imposed bar to reenlistment.  He had served 1 year, and 3 months of total
active service and was issued a Separation Code of “KGF” and a RE Code of
“4.”

11.  Army Regulation 601-280, in effect at the time, 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 duty is not
warranted.  Examples of rationale for reenlistment disqualification
include, but are not limited to, AWOL, indebtedness, recurrent nonjudicial
punishment, slow promotion progression, no demonstrated potential for
future service, and substandard performance of duties.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basis authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 16 covers the discharges caused
by changes in service obligations.  Paragraph 16-5 applies to personnel
denied reenlistment and provides that soldiers who receive bars to
reenlistment, and who perceive that they will be unable to overcome the bar
may apply for immediate discharge.

13.  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 reason for discharge.  Army Regulation 601-210 covers
eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and
processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the USAR.  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-4 indicates that a person is not qualified for
continued Army service by virtue of being separated from the service with a
nonwaivable disqualification such as a bar to reenlistment.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily
appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to
submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

2.  The applicant’s bar to reenlistment was imposed in compliance with the
applicable regulation with no indication of procedural errors which would
tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  The applicant was afforded the opportunity to submit matters in his own
behalf when he was notified that a bar was being imposed and chose instead
not to do so.

4.  Not only did the applicant not dispute the reasons for the bar, he
elected to separate from the service rather than to attempt to overcome the
circumstances of the bar.
5.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted; however, they are not
supported by the evidence of record and are not sufficiently mitigating
when compared to his overall record of service during such a short period
of service.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 29 October 1987; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on 28 October 1990.  However, the applicant did not file
within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling
explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice
to excuse failure to timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____TK _  ___PM __  ___CK __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




            ____Ted Kanamine_________
                    CHAIRPERSON


                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050001414                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051013                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD)                                    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES                  |191/rsn/auth                            |
|1.110.0200              |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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