RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  28 August 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070005260 


	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.


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Mr. Mohammed R. Elhaj

Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Paul M. Smith

Chairperson

Mr. Rodney E. Barber

Member

Mr. Rowland C. Heflin

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 his records by upgrading his reentry code (RE Code) from RE-4 to RE-1 (or any RE code that would allow him to rejoin the Army.)

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the RE code he was given is unjust.  He further states that the only reason he requested separation from the Army, after exhausting all chances for reassignment, was to follow medical advice pertaining to taking care of his family.  

3.  The applicant provides a copy of a physician letter, dated 5 May 1988, pertaining to diagnosis of the applicant's spouse.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant's records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 February 1987 for a period of 4 years.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 76Y (Supply Specialist).  The highest rank he attained while on active duty was private first class/pay grade E-3.

3.  The applicant’s records show that during his tenure on active duty, he was awarded the Army Service Ribbon, the Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar, and the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16).  The applicant's records do not show any significant acts of valor during his military service.

4.  The applicant's records show that on 6 July 1987, the applicant was placed on assignment to Germany and that he elected to serve the 'with dependents" tour for a period of 36 months.  He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 7th Infantry, 3rd Infantry Division (Germany) effective 28 June 1987 and his date of return from overseas (DEROS) was established to be 27 June 1990.  There is no record that the applicant's family members joined him during his tour in Germany.

5.  On 24 July 1987, the applicant requested a tour change from "a 36-month with dependent tour" to "a 24-month all others tour."  The request was approved and the applicant's new DEROS was established 27 June 1989. 

6.  The applicant's records further show that his immediate commander reported him absent without leave (AWOL) on 17 March 1988 after he failed to return to his unit from ordinary leave in Continental United States (CONUS).  The circumstances pertaining to date of return from AWOL are not available for review with this case. 

7.  The applicant's records show that, while on leave in CONUS, he was attached to the 24th Infantry Division, Fort Stewart, Georgia, for the purpose of a compassionate reassignment.  The facts and circumstances pertaining to this reassignment are not available for review in this case.

8.  On 8 August 1988, the applicant's immediate commander initiated a Bar to Reenlistment Certificate against the applicant citing 2 counts of AWOL and furnished the applicant a copy of the bar certificate.  The approval authority approved the bar to reenlistment on the same date.

9.  On 18 August 1988, the applicant submitted a memorandum and a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) to his immediate commander requesting discharge in accordance with paragraph 16-5 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separation).  The applicant stated on the DA Form 4187 that he did not feel he was able to overcome the bar to reenlistment and acknowledged that once separated, he would not be able to reenlist at a later date.

10.  On an unknown date in August 1988, the separation authority approved the request for separation and ordered the applicant be issued an honorable discharge.

11.  On 21 September 1988, the applicant was discharged from active duty under the provisions of paragraph 16-5 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of bar to reenlistment.  The DD Form 214 he was issued shows he was given a character of service of "Honorable", a Separation Program Designator" code of "KGF," and a "Reentry" code of 4.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  In the version in effect at the time, paragraph 16-5 established policy and prescribed procedures for the elimination of enlisted personnel by reason of bar to reenlistment.  It states, in pertinent part, that a Soldier who is denied or ineligible for continued active duty service may be separated, upon request, when a locally imposed bar to re-enlistment is approved.  Additionally, separation under this paragraph will occur no later than 90 days after the Soldier receives pre-separation counseling as required by law (see 10 USC 1142).  Any existing service obligation that cannot be fulfilled by the separation date will be waived, and overseas tours will be curtailed to the extent necessary to permit separation.  The service of Soldiers separated under this paragraph will be characterized as honorable.

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 the reason for discharge.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program), 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 Regular Army RE codes.

	a.  RE–1 applies to persons completing their term of service who are considered qualified to reenter the Army.

	b.  RE-4 applies to individuals separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification.  This includes anyone with a Department of the Army imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation, or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years of active federal service.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his RE code, currently RE-4, should be changed to RE-1 or to a code that would permit reenlistment. 

2.  The evidence confirms that the applicant’s RE code was assigned based on the fact that he was separated under the provisions of chapter 16, Army Regulation 635-200 after his bar to reenlistment was approved and he felt he could not overcome the bar and requested separation.  Therefore, he received the appropriate RE code associated with his discharge.

3.  The Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) does not correct records solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for other programs or benefits.  The RE-4 assigned to the applicant at the time of his discharge is correct.

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

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__pms___  __reb___  __rch___  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.




							Paul M. Smith
______________________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070005260
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20070828
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
100.0300
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.