RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 13 September 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070005003 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. Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano Director Mr. Michael L. Engle Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Mr. Thomas A. Pagan Chairperson Mr. Eric N. Andersen Member Mr. Paul M. Smith Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests, in effect, that his Reenlistment (RE) code 4 be changed so that he may reenlist in the Army. 2. The applicant states that he was locally barred to reenlistment at the time of his discharge. He desperately wants to serve in the military again. 3. The applicant provides a copy of his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214). 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. On 29 October 1985, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years. He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 88N1O (Traffic Management Coordinator). 3. On 19 March 1986, the applicant was assigned as a movement specialist with the 229th Transportation Company in the Federal Republic of Germany. 4. On 1 June 1987 the applicant was promoted to specialist four, pay grade E4. 5. On 30 October 1987, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for wrongful use of marijuana. The punishment included reduction to private first class, pay grade E3 and 45 days extra duty. 6. On 3 June 1988, the applicant accepted NJP for disorderly conduct. The punishment included reduction to private, pay grade E2, forfeiture of $100.00 pay per month for 2 months, and 45 days extra duty. 7. On 8 June 1988, the applicant’s commander initiated a Bar to Reenlistment (DA Form 4126). The commander based this action on the applicant’s two NJP, dishonored checks in August 1987, substantiated spousal abuse, and missed counseling sessions. The appropriate authority approved the bar to reenlistment on 20 June 1988. The applicant received a copy and elected not to appeal. 8. On 7 July 1988, the applicant requested immediate discharge because he believed that he could not overcome the locally imposed bar to reenlistment. 9. On 18 July 1988, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge. 10. On 10 August 1988, the applicant was discharged due to a locally imposed bar to reenlistment, under the provisions of Army regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5b. Accordingly, he was given a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of KGF and an RE code 4. His character of service was honorable. 11. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5b of that regulation provides that Soldiers who perceive they will be unable to overcome a locally imposed bar to reenlistment may apply for immediate discharge. 12. Army Regulation 601-280 (Total Army Retention Program), in effect at the time, provided that Soldiers discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5b, would receive an RE code 4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The RE code 4, identifying his ineligibility for enlistment/reenlistment, was correctly entered on his separation document in accordance with governing regulations. There is no evidence of error or injustice. 2. There is no apparent basis for removal or waiver of the applicant’s disqualification that established the basis for the RE code 4. While the applicant’s desire to continue in the service to his country is commendable, there are no provisions authorizing the change of an RE code for this purpose. 3. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING _TAP ___ __ENA__ __PMS___ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The Board determined that 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. _ Thomas A. Pagan___ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR SUFFIX RECON DATE BOARDED 20070913 TYPE OF DISCHARGE DATE OF DISCHARGE DISCHARGE AUTHORITY . . . . . DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 110.0200 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.