RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 5 February 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20070013629 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. Kenneth L. Wright Chairperson Mr. Antonio Uribe Member Mr. Ronald D. Gant 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 Reentry (RE) Code 4 be changed so that he may reenlist in the Army. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that his RE Code must be a 3 or better in order for him to be able to reenter the United States Army. 3. The applicant provides a copy of his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214). CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. On 14 September 2005, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army. There is no evidence showing that he completed his initial training. 2. On 9 March 2006, charges were preferred under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for violation of Article 86, AWOL, during the period from 7 January to 6 March 2006. 3. On 10 March 2006, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him. Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial. 4. In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge against him, or to a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. He further acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request was approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law. 5. On 17 May 2006, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge. 6. On 7 June 2006, the applicant was discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army regulation 635-200, Chapter 10. Accordingly, he was given a Separation Program Designator (SPD) Code of KFS and an RE Code of 4. 7. Army Regulation 601-210 prescribes eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the Army Reserve. Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment and includes a list of armed forces RE Codes including RA RE codes. RE 4 applies to persons separated from their last period of service with a non-waivable disqualification. That regulation further provides that RE codes may only be changed if they are determined to be administratively incorrect. 8. 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 upon the guidance provided in Army Regulation 635-5-1 for Soldiers separating under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, 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 4 as the proper RE code to assign to soldiers for this reason. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The RE Code 4, establishing 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 noted, there are no provisions authorizing the change of an RE Code for this purpose. 3. 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 the aforementioned requirement. 4. 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 __ KLW__ __AU ___ __RDG _ 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. ____ Kenneth L. Wright ____ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR SUFFIX RECON YYYYMMDD DATE BOARDED YYYYMMDD TYPE OF DISCHARGE (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) DATE OF DISCHARGE YYYYMMDD DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR . . . . . DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION (NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS) REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.