ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 June 2019 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20170002991 APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show her service was characterized as honorable versus uncharacterized and to show her reentry (RE) code as "1" instead of "4." APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: * DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record Under the Provisions of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552) * Name Change Order, issued by the Commonwealth of Kentucky on 19 December 2007 * social security card, issued on 26 December 2007 * DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) * Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) Docket Number AR20050014550 – Case Report and Directive, with 45 pages of associated documents FACTS: 1. The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. Code (USC), Section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 2. The applicant states: a. At the time of her enlistment on 15 December 2002, she was physically healthy. She injured herself during the last few weeks of basic training. She needed help getting out of bed and performing the most basic physical tasks. Since it was the end of basic training, she was sent to advanced individual training (AIT) and told that her gaining AIT unit would assist with rehabilitation or a medical board or some other option should she not recover to the point where her physical profile could be lifted. She spent most of AIT going back and forth to the health clinic. She also spent 14 days as an in-patient at Southside Regional Medical Center after she was diagnosed with viral pneumonia and meningitis at Fort Lee Health Clinic. a. b. After she was released from the hospital, her doctor authorized convalescent leave and expressed concerns that her health was worsening in the barracks. Her company did not allow her to take the recommended convalescent leave at first but after two weeks of calls from her doctor, Major X signed her leave paperwork. She returned home but did not improve and had to seek further medical attention. She called multiple times and left messages with her AIT chain of command to inform them of her status and to ask for additional convalescent leave. c. Things became even more complicated when her mother said she could no longer provide care for her son because she was in danger of losing her job. The applicant knew she could not take him back to AIT with her. She signed in at the nearest post, Fort Hamilton, in Brooklyn, NY, and sought legal assistance with all these issues. Her attorney secured a meeting with a social worker for the Fort Hamilton Family Advocacy Program. Her doctor arranged for her to return to Fort Knox for medical processing and discharge. Normally the process takes four weeks, which was too long due to her child care situation but the process was expedited because of her child care problems. Once she arrived at Fort Knox she found out they could not expedite the process. She spoke with Sergeant First Class X from the Personnel Control Facility at Fort Knox, who told her he would arrange for her to receive an uncharacterized discharge under Chapter 10, Separation in Lieu of Court-martial (the charge would have been connected to her absence without leave (AWOL) status from her unit at Fort Lee, VA) because the Chapter 10 could be processed much more quickly. She signed the necessary paperwork, received the discharge and returned home to care for her young child. d. The relevant portion of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 10-8 says, “When characterization of service under other than honorable conditions is not warranted for a soldier in entry-level status, service will be uncharacterized”. The intent of the regulation and her chain of command at Fort Knox was not to hurt her but instead to process her in the speediest possible way from the service while still making sure she did not have a negative characterization of service. Please consider and grant her request and upgrade her discharge to Honorable. The Army active duty and civilian employees were trying to help her by putting forward their best effort and selecting the speediest process for discharge that would not negatively impact her in the future. e. She was serving her country honorably and had one bad incident (AWOL) because she didn’t have proper care for her child. She had no experience and could not wait out medical board because of her lack of childcare so instead she went with whatever they gave her not knowing it would hurt her in the long run. If she’d had time to wait for a chapter under “failure to maintain a parenthood plan” she would have received an honorable discharge. If she would have waited for a medical board she would have received an honorable discharge. If she had abandoned her child and put him in the social services system she could have stayed in the Army long enough to accomplish these two paths for discharge. But she could not abandon her child and a. could not obtain any type of housing at Fort Knox in which to stay for the four to six months necessary for completion of a medical board. Although she is over the age of enlistment, she is asking the board to upgrade her RE code from "4" to "1." The current discharge characterization dishonors the service she provided to her country. 3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 15 January 2003. 4. Charges were preferred against the applicant on 31 July 2003, for being AWOL from on or about 3 June 2003 through on or about 23 July 2003. 5. The applicant consulted with legal counsel on 4 August 2003 and voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. a. In her request for discharge, she indicated she understood that if her request for discharge was accepted, she may be discharged under other than honorable conditions. She acknowledged that she was guilty of at least one of the charges against her or of a lesser-included offense. b. She had been advised of the possible effect of an under other than honorable conditions discharge and understood that she may be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that she may be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA), and that she could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State laws. c. She was advised she may submit statements in her behalf. 6. The separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, and directed she be approved an entry-level separation with uncharacterized service. 7. The applicant was discharged on 12 September 2003. The DD Form 214 she was issued shows she completed 6 months and 8 days of net active service. It further shows in: * Item 24 (Character of Service) – "Uncharacterized" * Item 25 (Separation Authority) – "AR 635-200, CHAP 10" * Item 26 (Separation Code) – "KFS" * Item 27 (RE Code) – "4" * Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – "In lieu of trial by court-martial" 8. The applicant applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of her discharge on 5 October 2005. The ADRB determined that her reason for discharge and characterization of service were both proper and equitable and denied her request for a discharge upgrade. 1. 9. Soldiers are considered to be in an entry-level status when they are within their first 180 days of active duty service. The evidence of record shows the applicant was in an entry-level status at the time of her initiation for separation processing. As a result, her service was appropriately described as "uncharacterized" in accordance with governing regulations. It appears all requirements of law and regulation were met throughout the separation process. BOARD DISCUSSION: After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, to include the DoD guidance on liberal consideration when reviewing discharge upgrade requests, the Board determined that partial relief was warranted. Based upon applicant’s separation being initiated within the first 180 days of military service, the Board concluded there was no error or injustice which would warrant making a change to the applicant’s characterization of service. However, Based upon the mitigating factors outlined within the applicant’s statement for the misconduct which led to her discharge, the Board determined to grant clemency by modifying the separation authority, separation code and the narrative reason for separation. BOARD VOTE: Mbr 1 Mbr 2 Mbr 3 : : : GRANT FULL RELIEF X X X GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF : : : GRANT FORMAL HEARING : : : DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by reissuing the applicant a DD Form 214 showing: * separation authority as “AR 635-200” * separation code as “JFF” * narrative reason for separation as “Secretarial Authority” 2. The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to upgrading the characterization of her discharge. 6/17/2019 X CHAIRPERSON Signed by: 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. REFERENCES: 1. Title 10, USC, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within three years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the three-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. 2. Army Regulation 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program) covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army, U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard. Table 3-1 provides a list of RE codes. * RE code "1" applies to Soldiers completing their term of active service, who are considered qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met * RE code "2" is no longer in use but applied to Soldiers separated for the convenience of the government, when reenlistment is not contemplated, who are fully qualified for enlistment/reenlistment * RE code "3" applies to Soldiers who are not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, whose disqualification is waivable – they are ineligible unless a waiver is granted * RE code "4" applies to Soldiers separated from their last period of service with a non-waivable disqualification 3. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides that SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for and types of separation from active duty. SPD code narrative reasons are aligned with applicable regulatory authority paragraphs. The SPD code of "KFS" is the appropriate code to assign Soldiers separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, by narrative reason of voluntary discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. 4. The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table provides instructions for determining the applicable RE code for separating Regular Army and Reserve Component Soldiers. This cross reference table shows the SPD code and a corresponding RE code. The table in effect at the time of the applicant's discharge shows that SPD code "KFS" was assigned a corresponding RE code of "4." 5. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. a. Chapter 3 states a separation will be described as entry level with uncharacterized service if the Soldier has less than 180 days of continuous active duty service at the time separation action is initiated. a. b. Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. c. Chapter 10, in effect at the time, provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge, could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial charges were preferred. Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service. Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses, the type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of VA benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge. An under other than honorable conditions discharge was normally considered appropriate.