IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	    28 July 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140021181 


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 his National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) by changing his Reentry Eligibility (RE) code of "RE-3" to an RE code of "RE-1" so he can reenlist in the military.

2.  The applicant states:

   a.  He served honorably in the U.S. Army and he was discharged upon completing his required active service with an RE code of RE-1.  He subsequently enlisted in the West Virginia Army National Guard (WVARNG) with a desire to serve in the 2nd Battalion, 19th Special Forces (SF) Group.

   b.  He lived in Virginia , but there were no SF units in the VAARNG so he joined the WVARNG with the understanding he would be afforded the opportunity to undergo the SF screening process.  However, his application never left his command despite two years of effort and eight screening opportunities.  He was not provided a reason from his command as to why he was not afforded the opportunity to undergo the screening.  His unit's drill schedule was demanding, but he would have made up the time.
   
   c. Meanwhile, his commute to the training site in Bluefield, WV, required him to commute over three hours from his residence in Grottoes, VA.  Construction and inclement weather made the drive even worse.  These were conditions which did not exist when he initially enlisted to serve with the 150th Armor Regiment.
   d.  When he enlisted in the WVARNG, he was told he would serve a weekend a month and two weeks in the summer.  It turned out that he would have to drill frequently for four and five day periods.  The two weeks in the summer also turned into three week periods.  On top of the drill periods, he had to attend a week long Combat Lifesaver Training Course and a two week Blue Force Tracker Training Course.  These courses were in February and March 2011.  The missed time from work for the long drill weeks and additional training led to an investigation by his civilian employer.
   
   e.  He suffered from Attention Deficit Disorder as a teenager.  He was going through a stressful time in 2011, so the doctor prescribed Adderall to alleviate his symptoms which accounts for his positive drug screening.  Meanwhile, conflicts between his doctor appointments and treatment for a testicular hydrocele and the unit's drill schedule caused him to miss drills.  He provided his prescription list, the doctor's excuses, and the doctor's reports to the unit by fax and mail; however, they denied receiving the documents.  He also tried to make up his missed drills with his unit to no avail.
   
   f.  After it became clear to him that he was not going to be afforded the opportunity to undergo SF screening, the WVARNG training schedule started to conflict with his civilian employment and illness.  He sought a transfer to a VAARNG unit to alleviate his commute, but this was also thwarted without explanation.  Between the commute and his medical issues, he missed too many drills, which were beyond his control.  He claims his commute was beyond the allowable limit and while he realizes it was his voluntary decision to undertake the commute, it was for the express purpose of pursuing an 18 series military occupational specialty.  Once he was prohibited from pursuing SF training, it became an involuntary commute.
   
   g.  Therefore, the real reason he was discharged from the WVARNG was the distance between his residence and the command; the lack of opportunity to pursue SF training; and being prohibited from an interstate transfer.  He was originally discharged in accordance with National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management), paragraph 6-35h (alcohol or other substance abuse rehabilitation failure), but this was later corrected to paragraph 6-35i (misconduct), with an RE code of 3.  However, he claims he should have been separated under paragraphs 6-36b (moving to an area where an ARNG is not within a reasonable commuting distance), 6-36c (failure to obtain assignment to a unit vacancy), and/or 6-36g (incompatible occupation - employment conflict), each of which results in an RE code of RE-1.
   
   h.  He wants nothing more than to enter the U.S. Army on active duty and serve the country once more.  Without the process being completed in a timely manner, he will not be enlisted and in training by 25 August 2015.  This is his cutoff date due to age restriction.  He asks the Board understand the importance of this matter to him and consider expediting the appeal for him and his family.

3.  The applicant provides:

* Congressional correspondence
* a self-authored statement
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service)
* NGB Form 22A (Correction to NGB Form 22)
* Numerous pages of medical records and related correspondence
* an extract of NGR 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management)

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Although the applicant lists a member of Tremblay and Smith as Counsel, Counsel did not render a request on the applicant's behalf.

2.  Counsel provides no additional statement. 

3.  Counsel provides no additional evidence.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 March 2002.  He completed training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 25Q (Multichannel Transmission System Operator).  He served in Iraq for the period 3 April 2003 to 11 April 2004 and from 1 March to 25 July 2005.  On 4 March 2006, he was honorably discharged upon the completion of his required active service.

2.  On 25 March 2010, the applicant enlisted in the WVARNG in the rank/grade of specialist/E-4 for a term of 3 years.  His records contain a DD Form 1966 (Record of Military Processing - Armed Forces of the United States), dated
25 March 2010, which shows he enlisted to serve in the 620th Signal Company, Weston, WV, and that he understood that the unit into which he was enlisting was farther than the reasonable commuting distance as defined in Army Regulation 135-91 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve - Service Obligations, Methods of Fulfillment, Participation Requirements, and Enforcement Procedures), paragraph 5-5. 

3.  His records contain Orders 187-614, issued by Joint Forces Headquarters - WV, Adjutant General's Department, dated 6 July 2011, which show the applicant requested and was approved to transfer from the 620th Signal Company, Weston, WV, to the 150th Armor Regiment, Bluefield, WV, effective 6 July 2011.

4.  On 12 October 2011, the applicant was identified as exceeding the cutoff values for a medication during the recent unit urinalysis.  The applicant acknowledged receipt by certified mail on 25 October 2011.  He was directed to follow the instructions in an attached memorandum and to forward any documentation.  He was also informed that failing to comply may result in disciplinary action.

5.  His records contain a Notification of Separation Proceedings under Army Regulation 135-178 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve - Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 12-1, for misconduct.  The memorandum, dated 26 April 2012, informed the applicant that he had taken no action to clear the positive drug urinalysis.  Therefore, his commander was recommending that he receive an under other than honorable characterization of service.  The applicant was instructed to complete the attached endorsement acknowledging the memorandum and to indicate the election of his rights by 26 May 2012.

6.  There is no indication the applicant received or responded to the memorandum.  His records contains evidence which shows the envelope addressed to the applicant in the same manner as the letter which identified him as exceeding the cutoff values for a medication during a unit urinalysis was returned as unclaimed by the applicant.

7.  Orders 199-629, issued by Joint Forces Headquarters - WV, Adjutant General's Department, dated 17 July 2012, discharged the applicant from the ARNG and as a Reserve of the Army due to misconduct in accordance with NGR 600-200, paragraph 6-35H, effective 17 July 2012.  The corresponding RE code is RE-3.

8.  The applicant's records contain an NGB 22A which shows the reason and authority of his discharge was changed from NGR 600-200, paragraph 6-35H to paragraph 6-35I.  The corresponding RE code remains RE-3.

9.  The applicant's record contains no reference to SF training although the applicant provides an undated letter addressed to:  "SF Applicant" which appears to be a general recruitment letter from the 19th SF Group.

10.  The applicant provides:
   
   a.  Several pages of medical records, some which contain listings of his outpatient prescriptions during the period in question. 
   b.  What appears to be a 2-page transcription of a conversation between the applicant and a former civilian coworker in January of an unknown year.  The applicant acknowledged he did not pay attention to his discharge from the ARNG and he requests the individual to write him a letter stating that he missed a lot of work for training without the proper paperwork, that Human Resources (HR) investigated the matter, and by missing so much time due to his ARNG training, it put a strain on his team at work because of coverage issues.  The individual responded that she would not be able to help him and stated the issue the team had was that they did not believe [the applicant] was serving (presumably in the ARNG) when he was not at his civilian employment.  After the individual validated the information, she spoke with HR and they recommended she not get involved. 
   
   c.  Two letters to Members of Congress from the Adjutant General, State of WV, dated 9 December 2013 and 16 October 2014, respectively, who states the applicant's RE code of RE-3 is correct per NGR 600-200, paragraph 6-35I.  The applicant's records indicate that prior to his discharge, he was notified and provided opportunities to respond regarding his pending discharge and failed to do so.  The applicant was informed he could seek relief from this Board if he wished to appeal.
   
11.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program) covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army, U.S. Army Reserve, and ARNG.  Chapter 3 prescribes the basic eligibility for prior-service applicants for enlistment and includes a list of Armed Forces RE codes.

* RE code 1 applies to persons who completed an initial term of active service who were fully qualified for enlistment when separated
* RE code 2 no longer applies
* RE code 3 applies to persons who were not qualified for reentry or continuous service at the time of separation, but the disqualification in waivable
* RE code 4 applies to Soldiers separated from their last period of service with a nonwaivable disqualification

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant provides alternative reasons for his discharge which would correlate with an RE code which is more amendable to him.  However, the preponderance of evidence shows the applicant was informed of his positive urinalysis and that he was offered the opportunity to refute the findings or place evidence into the record.
2.  Notwithstanding the applicant's contentions, the evidence of record shows he was properly assigned an RE code of RE-3 when he was discharged for misconduct in accordance with NGR 600-200, paragraph 6-35H, effective 17 July 2012.  The applicant’s separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

3.  An RE code of RE-3 does not preclude him from enlisting; however, it does require approval of a waiver.  Requests for waivers are processed through the U.S. Army Recruiting Command by local recruiters and are not within the purview of the Board.

4.  In view of the aforementioned evidence, there is no basis for granting the requested relief.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____X____  ___X_____  ____X____ 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.



      ___________X____________
               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)                                         AR20140021181





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140021181



6


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1