RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        22 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050007771


      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. Yvonne Foskey                 |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Thomas A. Pagan               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Eric N. Anderson              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Joe R. Schroeder              |     |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 correction of Item 27 (Reentry Code) of his
14 October 1991 separation document (DD Form 214).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he believes there is an error on
his
DD Form 214.  He states that he went to a recruiting office a few years ago
to enlist into the Army Reserve and was informed by the recruiters that he
was ineligible to reenlist because he had an RE-4 code.  He states when he
inquired about the meaning of the code, the recruiters informed him they
did not know what the code meant.  He claims it was his choice to separate
when the Army was down-sizing and Soldiers were offered severance pay.

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that occurred on 14 October 1991.  The application submitted in this case
is dated
21 March 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 limitations 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.  The applicant’s record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 24 September 1976.  He was trained in, awarded, and
served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 31N (Multi-Channel
Communication Systems Operator), and the highest rank he attained while
serving on active duty was staff sergeant (SSG).

4.  The applicant’s record shows that during his tenure on active duty, he
completed two overseas tours in Germany, and he earned the following
awards:  Army Service Ribbon; Army Good Conduct Medal, 4th Award; Overseas
Service Ribbon with Numeral 3; Army Achievement Medal with 3rd Oak Leaf
Cluster;
Army Commendation Medal, Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development
Ribbon with Numeral 2; and Driver Mechanic Badge with Driver-W bar.

5.  On 14 October 1988, the Army Calendar Year 1988 Sergeant QMP Selection
Board, after a comprehensive review of his record, determined that the
applicant should be barred from reenlistment under the provisions of the
Qualitative Management Program (QMP).

6.  On 27 March 1989, the commander notified the applicant of his
Department of Army (DA) Bar to Reenlistment under the QMP.  The applicant
was counseled and advised of the basis for the contemplated separation
action, its effects, of the rights available to him, and of the effect of
waiver of those rights.  Subsequent to this counseling, the applicant
elected to submit an appeal in his behalf.

7.  On 5 January 1990, the applicant was notified after careful review, a
DA Stand-By Advisory Board (STAB) denied his QMP appeal.

8.  On 1 March 1990, DA directed the applicant’s honorable discharge under
the provisions of paragraph 16-8, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of
reduction in authorized strength-qualitative early transition program.  DA
further directed that the applicant be assigned a Separation Program
Designator (SPD) code of JCC and an RE code of RE-4.  On 14 October 1990,
the applicant was discharged accordingly.

9.  The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant upon his
discharge confirms the applicant was separated under the provisions of
paragraph 16-8, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of reduction in
authorized strength-qualitative early transition program.  This document
also verifies that based on the authority and reason for discharge, the
applicant was assigned a SPD code of JCC and a RE-4 code.

10.  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.  Army Regulation 601-210
covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and
processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the US 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-4 applies to persons who are permanently
disqualified for continued Army service.

11.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) provides the specific authorities
(regulatory or directive), reasons for separating soldiers from active
duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.  It states, in
pertinent part, that the SPD code of JCC is the appropriate code to assign
to soldiers separated under the provisions of paragraph 16-8, Army
Regulation 635-200, by reason reduction in authorized strength-qualitative
early transition program.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table included
in the regulation establishes
RE-4 as the proper code to assign members separated with this SPD code who
have received a DA Bar to Reenlistment under the provisions of the QMP.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that the RE-4 code he was assigned at
separation was in error was carefully considered.  However, there was
insufficient evidence provided to support this claim.

2.  By regulation, the RE-4 code assigned the applicant was the proper code
to assign members separating under the provisions of chapter 16, Army
Regulation
635-200, by reason of reduction in authorized strength-qualitative early
transition program, who had received a DA Bar to Reenlistment under the
provisions of the QMP.  As a result, the RE-4 code was and still is still
is appropriate based on the authority and reason for his separation.

3.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s discharge
processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.
All requirements of law and regulation were met and the applicant’s rights
were fully protected throughout the separation process.

4.  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

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 14 October 1991.  Therefore, the time
for him to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired
on 13 October 1994.  He failed to 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

___TAP    __ENA___  __JRS __  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.




                            _____Thomas A. Pagan____
                                      CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050007771                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005-11-22                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1991/10/14                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200 . . . . .                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Reduction in Authorized Strength        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |110                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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