IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 25 September 2012 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20120005791 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 a change to his reentry (RE) code. 2. The applicant states he would like his RE code changed because he believes he is a better person than what his conduct in military service displayed. He claims he would like to re-do this chapter in his life. 3. The applicant provides no documentary evidence in support of his request. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The record shows the applicant served in the Regular Army from 7 March through 10 October 2007, at which time he was honorably discharged. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued at the time confirms he was separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-13, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), by reason of personality disorder. It further shows that based on the authority and reason for discharge, the applicant was assigned a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JFX and an RE code of 3. 3. On 15 January 2010, the applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard for 8 years and began the period of service under review. He served for 6 months and 29 days through 13 August 2010, at which time he was discharged with a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD). 4. The record does not contain the entire separation packet containing all the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation processing from the ARNG. The record does contain the separation authority approval memorandum that directed the applicant’s discharge from the ARNG and as a Reserve of the Army under the provisions of paragraph 6-35d(5), National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200 and paragraph 7-4, Army Regulation 138-178, by reason of fraudulent enlistment with a general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) and an RE-4 code. 5. The record also contains a National Guard Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service) that confirms the authority and reason for discharge and assignment of an RE-4 code as directed in the separation authority approval memorandum. 6. Army Regulation 135-178 (Enlisted Administrative Separations) sets policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the U.S. Army while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS) and U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) enlisted Soldiers for a variety of reasons. Paragraph 7-4 provides for the separation of members on the basis of fraudulent enlistment or reenlistment through any material misrepresentation, omission, or concealment which, if known at the time of enlistment or reenlistment might have resulted in rejection. 7. NGR 600-200 (Enlisted Personnel Management) establishes standards, policies, and procedures for the management of ARNG enlisted Soldiers. It provides the authority to assign either RE-3 or RE-4 codes to members separated by reason of fraudulent enlistment. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant’s request to change his RE code has been carefully considered. However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim. 2. The evidence of record does not contain a complete separation packet from the ARNG containing all the facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s separation processing. However, it does contain the approval memorandum from the separation authority and a properly constituted NGB Form 22 that confirm the authority and reason for the applicant’s discharge from the ARNG. These documents confirm the applicant was separated by reason of fraudulent enlistment and assigned an RE-4 code by the separation authority in accordance with the applicable regulations. 3. Absent any evidence of error or injustice related to his separation processing, the applicant’s statement that he is now a better person, while noteworthy, is not sufficiently mitigating to support 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) AR20120005791 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20120005791 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1