MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           20 August 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002073300

	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	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Lutz		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:  In effect, that his reentry (RE) code be upgraded. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, he believes the record to be unjust, and would like to have the ability to one day return to the Army.  He indicates that his discharge was upgraded to honorable, the narrative reason changed to Secretarial Authority, and his grade restored to staff sergeant as a result of an Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) action.  

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

He served on active duty from 2 October 1989 through 29 August 2001, and the highest rank he attained was staff sergeant E-6 (SSG/E-6).  

The applicant’s record confirms that a court-martial charge was preferred against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) for 35 days, between 1 May and 
4 June 2001.  

On 14 July 2001, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and the effects of an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.  Subsequent to this counseling, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  In his request for discharge, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense.  

On 25 August 2001, the separation authority directed the applicant’s UOTHC discharge and his reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.  The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant at this time confirmed that he completed a total of 
11 years, 9 months, and 22 days of creditable active military service and accrued a total of 36 days of time lost due to AWOL. This document confirms he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by court-martial, and that he was properly assigned an RE-4 code in Item 27 (Reentry Code).

On 5 April 2002, the ADRB found that the character of and reason for the applicant’s discharge were inequitable and voted to upgrade his characterization to fully honorable and to change the reason for his discharge to Secretarial Authority.  The ADRB based their action on the applicant’s overall record of faithful and honorable service because it determined his misconduct was an aberration.  However, the ADRB consciously elected not to change the applicant’s RE-4 code, as evidenced by the remark “This action does not entail a change to the RE code” contained in Part VIII – Directive/Certification, 
Section A – Directive, of the ADRB’s decisional document. 

The new DD Form 214 issued to the applicant subsequent to the ADRB action confirms that the authority for his discharge was changed to paragraph 5-3, Army Regulation 635-200, and the narrative reason for his discharge was changed to Secretarial Authority.  In addition, Item 26 (Separation Code) contains the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code KFF and Item 27 (Reentry Code) contains the RE code of RE-4.  

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.  It states, in pertinent part, that the SPD code of KFF is the appropriate code to assign to soldiers separating under the provisions of paragraph 5-3, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of Secretarial Authority.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table contained in the regulation establishes that the RE code assigned to members assigned the SPD code of KFF will be determined by the Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) directive authorizing the separation.  

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 Board notes the applicant’s request that his RE-4 code be upgrade in order to allow him the opportunity to return to the Army at some point.  However, it finds this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.  

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s original discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations in effect at the time. 

3.  In addition, the Board notes that the ADRB voted to upgrade the characterization of the applicant’s discharge to honorable, and to change the reason for his discharge to Secretarial Authority, in the interest of equity.  However, it consciously elected not to change his RE code.  Therefore, since the applicant has failed to provide any further evidence of error or sufficiently mitigating factors, the Board concludes that RE-4 code assigned at separation and certified by the ADRB was and still is appropriate.

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

__JHL __  __ RVO  _  __BJL  __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002073300	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/08/20	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	2001/08/29	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 	
DISCHARGE REASON	Secretarial Authority	
BOARD DECISION	 DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  4	100.0300	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.