PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            1 March 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000050322

	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	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. John H. Kern		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Richard T. Dunbar		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A -  Application for correction of military 
                             records
	Exhibit B -  Military Personnel Records (including
	                  advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD) and that his reentry (RE) code be changed from RE-4 to RE-3.  

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that his record of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) indicates only isolated or minor offenses, his absent without leave (AWOL) record indicates only minor offenses; and his ability to serve was impaired by his youth, immaturity, and family problems.  In support of his application, he provides the enclosed letter from his mother.   

4.  The applicant’s military records show that on 9 October 1998, he entered the Regular Army for 4 years at the age of 17 years and 11 months.  He successfully completed basic training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri and attended advanced individual training (AIT) at Fort Sam Houston, Texas for training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 76J (Medical Supply Specialist). 

5.  On 1 April 1999 the applicant went AWOL from his unit and remained away until 11 April 1999, when he returned to military control at Fort Sam Houston, Texas.  There is no separation packet on file that includes the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his discharge processing.  

6.  However, there is a properly constituted Department of Defense (DD) Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) on file, which he authenticated by the applicant with signature on the date of his separation.  This form contains the authority and reason for his discharge and the characterization of his service.  

7.  The DD Form 214 also confirms that on 15 April 1999, the applicant was discharged, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial, and his service was characterized as UOTHC.  At the time of his discharge he had completed only 5 months and 27 days of active military service and he had accrued 11 days of time lost due to AWOL.  The form also verifies that based on the authority and reason for his discharge, he was assigned a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of KFS and an RE code of RE-4.

8.  On 8 December 2000, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade to his discharge.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

10.  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.  The SPD code of KFS was the appropriate code for the applicant based on this regulatory guidance for soldiers separating under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Additionally, Table 2-3 (SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table), Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) establishes RE Code 3 as the proper reentry code to assign to soldiers separated for this reason.

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 United States 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.

12.  RE-4 is a code assigned to members who are disqualified from reenlistment and the reason for the disqualification is not waivable.  RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable and applies to persons discharged under the provisions of chapters 9, 10, 13, 14, and 
16 of Army Regulation 635-200.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board noted the contentions of the applicant and considered the letter of support from his mother, however, none of these factors were sufficiently mitigating to warrant an upgrade to the applicant’s discharge.  Although his record is void of specific facts concerning the events that led to his discharge, it does include a properly constituted DD Form 214.  This document makes clear that he voluntarily requested discharge in order to avoid a court-martial and the punitive discharge he might have received.  

2.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and the character of the discharge was commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of service.
3.  However, during its review of this case, the Board did discover an error in the RE code assigned to the applicant at discharge.  By regulation, members separating in lieu of trial by court-martial, with an SPD code of KFS, receive an RE-3 code, as opposed to the RE-4 listed in the applicant’s DD Form 214.  

4.  Lacking any evidence of record that supports the RE-4 code assignment in this case, the Board finds it likely this code was assigned as a result of an administrative error.  Therefore, the Board concludes that it would be appropriate to change the applicant’s RE code to RE-3 at this time.  

5.  The applicant is advised that an RE-3 code still denotes a disqualification from reenlistment.  However, since the reason for disqualification is waivable, he may still be able to reenlist with a waiver by contacting recruiting personnel who have the responsibility for determining if a member meets the current enlistment criteria.

6.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing the individual concerned was assigned an RE-3 code at the time of his discharge and by issuing him a corrected separation document that reflects this RE code change.  

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__jhk  ___  __clg ___  __rtd ___  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

	_____John H. Kern _______
	        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000050322	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/03/01	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1999/04/15	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, ch 10	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT PARTIAL	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000/discharge	
2.  4	100.0300/RE	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.