MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            5 March 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002067555

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Beverly A. Young 		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern		Member	
	Mr. Donald P. Hupman		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

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

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his Reentry Eligibility (RE) Code be changed to a more favorable code.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he requests that his reenlistment code be changed because he may rejoin the Army and prove to himself and his country that he is “worthy” to be a part of the Army’s positive functions.  The applicant did not submit any documents in support of his application.

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

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 March 1999 for a period of six years.  He completed basic combat training at Fort Benning, Georgia and was further assigned to Fort Gordon, Georgia, for advanced individual training (AIT).

While in AIT, the applicant was AWOL from 7 October 1999 through 18 November 1999.  Charges were preferred against the applicant on 23 November 1999 for this period of AWOL.

On 24 November 1999, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offenses charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA) if an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge were issued.  The applicant did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  

On 13 April 2000, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed an UOTHC discharge.  The applicant was discharged on 5 May 2000.  He completed 1 year and 7 days of active military service with 43 days of lost time.  His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged with a separation code of “KFS” (For the Good of the Service – In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial) and issued a RE code of RE-4.

On 23 January 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.  

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, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated reasons.  The regulation shows that the separation program designator “KFS” as shown on the applicant’s DD Form 214 specifies the narrative reason for discharge as “For the Good of the Service – In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial” and that the authority for discharge under this separation program designator is “AR 635-200, Chapter 10.” 
Additionally, SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table, dated October 1999, establishes RE Code 4 as the proper reentry code to assign to soldiers separated for this reason.

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.  

Table 3-6 of Army Regulation 601-210, in effect at the time, lists the Armed Forces RE Codes.  In pertinent part, this table states that RE-4 applies to persons with nonwaivable disqualifications including adverse RE codes.  Paragraph 3-6 states that RE codes are not upgraded unless they are administratively incorrect when originally issued.

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.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows he was discharged with a separation code of “KFS” (For the Good of the Service – In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial) and was assigned a RE code “4” in accordance with the governing regulation in effect at the time.  

2.  The contentions of the applicant have been noted by the Board.  However, he has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that the reenlistment code issued to him was administratively incorrect, or in error or unjust.  Therefore, his DD Form 214 is correct as currently constituted and there is no basis to change his reentry code.

3.  The Board considered the applicant’s request that this RE Code be changed so that he can rejoin the Army to prove he can be a good soldier.  However, evidence of record shows that his administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The Board does not change characterization of discharges or change RE Codes solely to allow former soldiers to reenlist.

4.  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 this requirement.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is 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

FNE_____  TBR_____  DPH_____  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002067555	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20020305	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	UOTHC	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	20000505	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200,chapter 10	
DISCHARGE REASON	For the Good of the Service – In lieu of trial by court-martial	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.0300	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.