ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:  11 October 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20180002338


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  an upgrade to her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or discharge from Active Duty) separation code and change the narrative reason.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

* DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* Letter of Support.

FACTS:

1.  The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United States 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.  Applicant states the code prohibits her from receiving certain veteran benefits.  She only served less than two years, but since she is a Gulf War Veteran exceptions are made for wartime Veterans with less than two years of service.  Currently I am not eligible to receive medical or VA loan benefits.  During her exit, early outs were occurring for a reduction in force and she was open to exiting the Army.  Her company commander, CPT X___, used the fact that she had an unrevealed heart murmur (a condition that comes and goes) as a favor to the applicant.  She did not understand at the time what separation code “KGF” meant.  After discovering the meaning, it is an error.  There is no substance, proof, process, or documentation presented to her of a failure to meet minimum qualifications.  She is certain her commander was trying to help her as exiting the service during the reduction in force was her desire.  But if a heart condition was the rationale, a medical discharge would be in order, or a reduction in force separation code.

3.  A review of her service records show:

	a:  She enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 November 1991.

	b:  On 22 June 1993, a DA Form 4126-R shows the commander recommending a Bar to Reenlistment for several negative statements from duty section concerning failure to report and unsuitable performance.

	c.  On 23 June 1993 she received nonjudicial punishment on/for:

* 17 June 1993, failing to go at the time prescribed to your place of duty
* 19 June 1993, failing to go at the time prescribed to your place of duty.
.
	d.  A DA Form 4126-R (Bar to Reenlistment Certificate), dated 28 June 1993, documents that the applicant was furnished a copy of the recommendation.  The form further shows that the applicant acknowledged that she received a copy of her commander's recommendation to bar her from further reenlistment, that she was counseled and advised of the basis for this action.  The applicant stated that she did not desire to submit a statement in her own behalf.  The applicant's bar to reenlistment was approved on 28 June 1993.

	e.  On 2 August 1993 the applicant was honorably separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5b, by reason of a locally imposed bar to reenlistment.  The DD Form 214 she was issued at the time confirms that she had completed 1 year, 8 months, and 14 days of active military service.  This document also confirms that based on the authority and reason for her separation, she was assigned a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of KGF and a RE code of RE-3.

4.  Her record is void of any documentation showing she suffered from an illness or injury that would warrant referral to the Physical Disability Evaluation System.

5.  The applicant provided a letter from a family member that supports the applicants’ statement on not knowing she was getting put out the Army with a bad SPD code and narrative and the unjust the applicant received. 

6.  There is no indication in the record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board to request a change in the narrative reason for his discharge within the 15-year statute of limitations.  

7.  By regulation AR 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 16-5b provides that Soldiers who perceive that they will be unable to overcome a locally imposed bar to reenlistment may apply for immediate discharge.


BOARD DISCUSSION:

After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board determined that relief was not warranted.  Based upon the documentary evidence provided by the applicant and found within the military service record, the Board concluded there was no evidence of an error or injustice which would warrant making a change to the applicant’s military service record.  The Board found the evidence of record supports the current narrative reason for separation.

BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:	:	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 the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.
	 
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 601-280 (Total Army Retention Program) governed bars to reenlistment at the time in question.  Essentially, this regulation provided that a Soldier could be barred from reenlisting based on specific incidents of substandard performance and that any commander in the Soldier’s chain of command may initiate a bar to reenlistment.  Procedurally, the regulation required that a bar to reenlistment certificate be prepared and referred to the Soldier so he or she can submit a statement on his or her own behalf.  Each member of the chain of command must then endorse the bar to reenlistment to the proper approval authority.  The regulation required that the approval authority for a Soldier with less than 10 years' active Federal service at date of bar initiation must be personally approved by the first commander in the rank of lieutenant colonel or above in the Soldier's chain of command, or the commander exercising Special Court Martial Convening Authority, whichever is in the most direct line to the Soldier (unless this is the same commander who initiated the action).  The personal signature of the approving or disapproving authority is required.  The regulation also provided that the Soldier may appeal the bar to reenlistment and that final approval of appeals will be at least one approval level higher than the original bar approval authority.

3.  Army Regulation 601-280 further provides that the proper unit commander will review approved bars to reenlistment at least three months after the date of approval.  If the commander feels the bar to reenlistment should remain, the entry "Bar to Reenlistment reviewed; not recommended for removal, (date)" will be made on the Soldier's DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record). 

NOTHING FOLLOWS

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20170005751


3


1