IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	        29 JULY 23008

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080007833 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests correction of appropriate military records to show a reentry eligibility (RE) code which would allow enlistment.  In effect, this constitutes a request for removal or waiver of those disqualifications which preclude enlistment.  

2.  The applicant states that he was furnished an RE-4 code which means that he has been rejected for employment by every military and civilian employer.  He states that he has been informed by recruiters that he cannot be accepted in the military until his RE-4 code is changed.  He states that he served faithfully in the Army for 14 years and that he would like an opportunity to gain the retirement that he was working towards.  He states that he did nothing wrong at the time of his last enlistment and that he believed that he could at least gain Federal employment to continue his career.  He requests that his RE-4 code be changed so that he can have a chance at serving his country for an additional 6 years and qualifying for his much deserved retirement.  He states that he was discharged with severance pay because there were too many Soldiers in the Army and that he did not realize that he would be unable to apply to continue his Government service or to receive his retirement.  He states that he did receive some Article15's for misbehavior; however, it was nothing that should keep him from receiving a retirement.  He states that he was young and spunky when he received his disciplinary actions and that he has continued to carry himself in an honorable manner because he is very proud of his military service.  He states that he believes that this is a country of forgiving men and women and that he 

also believes that veterans’ service should be honored by giving them a chance to lead a decent life.  He states that he can provide his family a decent life if he is given the chance to receive his retirement.  He states that he currently works as a police officer for a Federal Reserve Bank and that he would like to apply to the Department of Veterans Affairs Hospital in the same field, which would afford him the opportunity to apply his 14 years of military service towards a 20-year retirement.  He concludes by stating that he is not sure why he was furnished an RE-4 code and that maybe it was policy.

3.  The applicant provides in support of his application, a copy of his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214).

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.  On 14 June 1976, the applicant enlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) in Richmond, Virginia, for 6 years, in the pay grade of E-1.

2.  On 25 June 1976, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for 3 years, in the pay grade of E-2.  He successfully completed his training as a food service specialist.

3.  The available records do not show the dates of his promotion to the pay grades of E-3 and E-4; however, the records do show that after completing 3 years of net active service, he was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) on 24 June 1979, in the pay grade of E-4 and that he was transferred to the USAR Control Group (Reinforcement) to complete his Reserve obligation.

4.  The applicant enlisted in the RA for 3 years on 5 May 1981 in the pay grade of E-4 and he remained on active duty through a series of reenlistments.  


5.  The applicant's Personnel Qualification Record shows that he was promoted to the pay grade of E-5 on 2 December 1983 and that he was promoted to the pay grade of E-6 on 6 May 1985.  On 3 June 1986, he was reduced to the pay grade of E-5; however, the facts and circumstances surrounding his reduction are not on file.

6.  On 29 November 1989, the applicant was notified that he was barred from reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program.  At the time that he received his notification, he indicated that he was submitting an appeal to the Department of the Army (DA) imposed bar to reenlistment.  However, the available record does not contain the appeal made by the applicant to his DA imposed bar to reenlistment.  

7.  On 20 September 1990, the applicant's commanding officer (CO) was notified that the applicant's appeal to the DA imposed bar to reenlistment was carefully reviewed by a DA Standby Advisory Board and that his appeal was disapproved. In the notification, the applicant's CO was informed that the board judged the applicant's past performance and estimated potential and determined that they were not in keeping with the standards expected of the Noncommissioned Officer Corps.  He was informed that the applicant must be separated from the Army no later than 31 December 1990; that his separation was to be under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8; that his narrative reason for separation would be for "Reduction in Authorized Strength – Qualitative Early Transition Program; that he was to be furnished an RE-4 code; that his separation program designator was to be JCC; and that the characterization of his service was to be honorable.

8.  Accordingly on 14 December 1990, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8, based on a reduction in strength, under the Qualitative Early Transition Program.  He had completed 12 years, 7 months, and 10 days of net active service and he was issued an RE-4 code.

9.  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 DA imposed or locally imposed bars to reenlistment, and who perceive that they will be unable to overcome the bar may apply for immediate discharge.  Paragraph 16-8 provides that personnel will be notified of the separation by appropriate commanders and be provided the basis for the separation.  Personnel discharged under these chapters will be assigned an RE-4 code.

10.  Army Regulation 600-200, chapter 4, sets forth policy and prescribes procedures for denying reenlistment under the QMP.  This program is based on the premise that reenlistment is a privilege for those whose performance, conduct, attitude, and potential for advancement meet Army standards.  It is designed to (1) enhance quality of the career enlisted force, (2) selectively retain the best qualified Soldiers to 30 years of active duty, (3) deny reenlistment to nonprogressive and nonproductive Soldiers, and (4) encourage Soldiers to maintain their eligibility for further service.  The QMP consists of two major subprograms, the qualitative retention subprogram and the qualitative screening subprogram.  Under the qualitative screening subprogram, records for grades
E-5 through E-9 are regularly screened by the DA promotion selection boards.  The appropriate selection boards evaluate past performances and estimate the potential of each soldier to determine if continued service is warranted.  Soldiers whose continued service is not warranted receive a QMP bar to reenlistment.

11.  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.  An RE-4 code applies to a person with a non-waivable disqualification.

12.  Army Regulation 601-210 provides the guidance for the issuance of RE codes upon separation from active duty.  It states, in pertinent part, that these codes are not to be considered derogatory in nature, they are simply codes that are used for identification of an enlistment processing procedure.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was separated and assigned an RE code in accordance with the applicable regulation.

2.  There appears to be no basis for removal or waiver of those disqualifications which established the basis for the reentry eligibility code.

3.  The applicant's contentions have been noted.  However, he was discharged from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8, due to a reduction in strength, under the Qualitative Early Transition Program.  Therefore, he was assigned an RE-4 code in accordance with the applicable 


regulations.  While the Board empathizes with the applicant's employment position, his DD Form 214 appropriately reflects the RE code that coincides with his narrative reason for separation.

4.  The applicant is commended for his 12 years, 7 months, and 10 days of net active service; his desire to seek an alternative employment situation; and his desire to apply his 12 plus years of military service to a 20-year retirement.  However, neither of these factors, either individually or in sum, warrant the relief requested.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show 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.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__XXX __  __XXX__  __XXX__   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.



      ___        XXX                ___
                CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080007833



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080007833



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1