APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his reentry eligibility code be changed to RE 1 and that he be entitled to separation pay.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his request was not properly processed and he was given the wrong separation and reentry codes.  The intent of his request and the type of discharge to include provision for separation pay was understood and endorsed by his entire military chain of command to include the commanding general.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant’s military records show: 

He was born on 20 May 1967.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 November 1985 and had continuous service until his discharge.

On 23 April 1996, the applicant requested an administrative discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5-3, Secretarial Authority.  He requested that he be granted an honorable discharge “with reentry eligibility code (RE) assigned and applicable award of separation pay to facilitate transition into the civilian sector and liquidation of any financial obligations to the U.S. Government.”

His first listed reason for requesting discharge under this authority was:  “Recent and dramatic changes in moral and religious beliefs pertaining to the husbands (sic) role in the Christian family.  I no longer desire to live separate and apart from my family.  As a civilian, I would be better able to meet the everyday needs of my family.  The Army, my unit, and it’s (sic) missions are no longer the number one priority in my life.”

The applicant’s Reserve Component Non-Commissioned Officer recommended approval.  He notes that the applicant indicated an interest in Reserve Component service.  He makes no mention of separation pay.

The applicant’s company commander recommended approval.  He notes, among other reasons, “______’s strong desire to separate due to family concerns and conflict of duty to the Army and unit, verses (sic) responsibility to the family, could become an insurmountable distraction to mission accomplishment.”  He makes no mention of separation pay but does recommend the applicant be given an RE code of 1.

The applicant’s battalion commander recommended approval.  He makes no mention of separation pay but does recommend the applicant be given an RE code of 1.

The Fort Bragg, NC Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) prepared a decision paper for the commanding general wherein he recommended concurrence with the applicant’s request.  The decision paper noted “____ desires to leave active military service due to personal hardships and for educational aspirations.”  He makes no mention of separation pay.

The commanding general recommended approval.  He recommended the applicant be given an RE code of 1 but makes no mention of separation pay.

On 12 December 1996, Headquarters, Department of the Army approved the applicant’s request.  The approval memo gave the authority for separation as Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-3; soldier’s character of service to be established as “honorable;” narrative reason for separation to be “Secretarial Authority;” separation program designator (SPD) code as “MFF;’ and RE code 3.

On 15 January 1997, after being told by his Finance office that he was not entitled to separation pay, the applicant forwarded a memo to his Senator reference this pay .  In the memo he states, “I made my request for administrative discharge based on several weeks of research, the award of Separation Pay was a primary factor in my decision to request an administrative discharge.  My request for administrative discharge clearly requests an award of applicable Separation Pay to facilitate transition into the civilian sector and liquidation of any financial obligations to the U.S. Government.”

The applicant was honorably discharged on 5 February 1997, in pay grade E-6, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-3, Secretarial Authority, with an SPD code of KFF and an RE code of 3.  He had completed   11 years, 2 months and 10 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.  

On 22 September 1997, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service - Denver sent a letter to the applicant notifying him that he owes a debt to the government of $340.31 due to excess leave.

On 22 September 1997, the Retirements and Separations Branch, Department of the Army notified the applicant that as his discharge was a voluntary separation, he is not entitled to separation pay.
Army Regulation 635-5-1 prescribes the specific authorities, reasons for separating soldiers from active duty and the SPD codes to be entered on the  DD Form 214.  SPD code “MFF” is a voluntary release from active duty or transfer under Secretarial Authority.  SPD code “KFF” is a voluntary discharge under Secretarial Authority.

Army Regulation 601-210 prescribes eligibility criteria governing the enlistment of persons, with or without prior service, into the Regular Army and the U.S. Army Reserve.  It provides 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.  RE-1 applies to persons completing their term of active service who are considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army.  Re-3 applies to persons who are not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at the time of separation, but the disqualification is waiverable.

Title 10, section 1174, U.S. Code authorizes separation pay for a regular enlisted member who is discharged involuntarily or as the result of the denial of the reenlistment of the member.  Section 1174a provides for separation pay upon voluntary separation under a special separation benefits program.  The programs are subject to the needs of the service and are determined by the Secretary concerned.  The applicability of a program under this section is generally limited to any category of personnel defined by the Secretary in order to meet a need of the armed force under the Secretary’s jurisdiction to reduce the number of members in certain grades, the number of members who have completed a certain number of years of active serve or the number of members who possess certain military skills or are serving in designated competitive categories.

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

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 the aforementioned requirement.

2.  In the applicant’s request for administrative discharge, he voluntarily requested a discharge for personal reasons.  His stated reasons included:  recent changes in moral and religious beliefs pertaining to the husband’s role in the Christian family; his spouse had an established career and household and relocation would cause a hardship; he intended to finish college on a full or half-day schedule; and he had secured lucrative employment opportunities.

3.  His reasons for separation did not fall under the requirements of Title 10, sections 1174 or 1174a, U.S. Code, for entitlement to separation pay.

4. There is some indication that the applicant may have misled his chain of command as to the real reasons for his requested separation, since in his          15 January 1997 memo to his Senator he states that the award of separation pay was a primary factor in his decision to request an administrative discharge.
He did not state this in his request for discharge and at no stage in his chain of command’s recommendations was any mention made of separation pay.

5.  Although Headquarters, Department of the Army had stated in their approval memo that the applicant was to receive SPD “MFF,” SPD “KFF, as shown on his DD Form 214, is correct.  The applicant had over 11 years of service, he no longer had a reserve service obligation, so he was correctly discharged from the service instead of being released from active duty.

6.  His RE code of 3 was and is still the appropriate reentry eligibility code.  His chain of command may have recommended he be given an RE code of 1, but because he did not complete his contractual term of service, he was not authorized to receive a code of 1.  RE code 3 means he was disqualified from reenlistment, but the disqualification is waiverable.

7.  In view of the foregoing, there appears to be no basis for granting the applicant’s request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

                       GRANT

                       GRANT FORMAL HEARING

                       DENY APPLICATION

                                Loren G. Harrell
					 	Director