ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	

	BOARD DATE:  25 June 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20190002989


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 
(Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show his reenlistment eligibility 
(RE) code has been dropped and his general discharge, under honorable conditions 
has been upgraded.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD: 

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	DD Form 214

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.  The applicant states he was age 17 at the time he entered the Army.  He was 
immature and not ready for the responsibility he was given.  The things that he did were 
wrong, but it has been 21 years since he was in the Army and his RE code and 
character of service still haunts him.  It’s hard for him to get good paying jobs to support 
his family.  

3.  On 28 November 1995, at age 17 years and 4 months, the applicant enlisted in the 
Regular Army for 4 years.  He held military occupational specialty (MOS) 31U (Signal 
Support Systems Specialist).  He was assigned to Fort Campbell, KY, with duties 
associated with his MOS.

4.  General Counseling Forms and notifications for returned checks, dated between 
October 1996 and August 1997 show he was counseled on approximately 20 separate 
occasions for various reasons to include:  refusing to perform a detail, failure to report to 
his place of duty (x3), misconduct, failure to properly communicate with his chain of 
command (x2), indebtedness (x3), failure to be financially responsible, falsifying 
information, lying to noncommissioned officers, being unshaven at formation, being 
absent from his place of duty, being late for work, be continuously late for formation, 
and failure to pay his debt.

5.  The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provision of Article 15, 
Uniform Code of Military Justice on:

*	31 January 1997, for insubordinate conduct when he willfully mocked a corporal 
and was subsequently disrespectful toward a sergeant first in his deportment;  
his punishment consisted of 7 days of extra duty
*	14 April 1997, for absenting himself from his unit from 9 to 10 April 1997; and for 
failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed on 11 April 
1997; his punishment consisted of reduction to pay grade E-2, a forfeiture pay 
(suspended), and 14 days restriction and extra duty

6.  A Montgomery County Probation Contract, dated 5 May 1997, confirms the applicant 
was tried and convicted or his trial had been deferred (for one year in accordance with 
Tennessee Code annotated 40-35-313 by the General Sessions Court for the offense of 
bad check and he was sentenced to 11 months and 29 days.  He was given supervised 
probation until all conditions of the court were met.

7.  A Bar to Reenlistment was imposed against the applicant on 1 July 1997, for positive 
drug urine results, dated 19 June 1997.  He tested positive for “THC,” 
Tetrahydrocannabinol.  The applicant indicated that he would appeal the bar to 
reenlistment; however, there is no evidence that he appealed the bar to reenlistment. 

8.  On 1 July 1997, the applicant was assessed by the Alcohol and Drug Abuse 
Prevention and Control Program rehabilitation team for enrollment.  He was enrolled in 
the alcohol/drug education for 9 and 10 July 1997 and for outpatient rehabilitation every 
Thursday.  

9.  On 10 July 1997, he received NJP for wrongfully using [some amount of] marijuana 
between 4 June 1996 and 4 June 1997 on diverse occasions; his punishment consisted 
of restriction (suspended), reduction to pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of pay, and extra 
duty.

10.  A Report of Mental Status Evaluation confirms that, on 12 August 1997, the 
applicant was mentally cleared for separation.  On 2 September 1997, he was found 
medically qualified for separation.

11.  On 24 September 1997, the applicant’s immediate commander notified the 
applicant of his intent to initiate action to separate him under the provisions of chapter 
14, paragraph 14-12b, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, for a pattern of misconduct.  He 
was advised of his rights.  
       
       a.  The specific reasons cited for the proposed action were his having written 
multiple bad checks and failed to pay the just debts, and he had received three 
nonjudicial punishments for:  The wrongful use of marijuana, being disrespectful toward 
a noncommissioned officer, and for being absent without leave and failing to report to 
his appointed place of duty.  The immediate commander recommended separation with 
a general discharge.  The applicant acknowledge acknowledged notification, 
acknowledged he had been given the opportunity to consult with appointed counsel, 
and he waived his right to further consult with counsel and declined to submit 
statements in his own behalf.  

      b.  The applicant’s immediate and intermediate commanders recommended 
approval of the applicant’s separation with a general discharge.  

12.  On 29 September 1997, the separation authority approved the applicant's 
discharge under the provisions of chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR 635-200, with a 
general discharge, under honorable conditions.  Accordingly, the applicant was 
discharged on 8 October 1997. 

13.  On 8 October 1997, he was discharged accordingly.  His DD Form 214 shows he 
completed 1 year, 10 months, and 9 days of active service.  His DD Form 214 also 
shows:

*	the separation program designator (SPD) code of "JKA"
*	narrative reason for separation as "Misconduct"
*	Reentry Code as “3”

14.  On 7 March 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) (Docket Number 
AR2001051991) reviewed his record of service and the issues he submitted and found 
no mitigating factors that would merit an upgrade of his discharge.  The ADRB 
determined his discharge was both proper and equitable and denied relief.

15.  The applicant contends, in effect, his RE code should be changed and his general 
discharge upgraded to honorable, because he was young, immature, and not ready for 
the responsibility that he was given.  His records shows he was 17 years old when he 
enlisted and within 11 months of his enlistment, he started receiving corrective 
counseling's for a multitude of reasons and his performance continued to consistently 
decline.  He completed 1 year, 10 months, and 9 days of his 4 year enlistment 
obligation

16.  In reaching its determination, the Board can consider the applicant's petition and his 
service record in light of the published Department of Defense guidance on equity, 
injustice, or clemency.

BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, 
evidence in the records and published DOD guidance for consideration of discharge 
upgrade requests.  The Board discussed the frequency and nature of the misconduct, 
the applicant’s statement, the absence of mitigating factors in the records, and that the 
applicant provided no mitigating factors or post-service accomplishments for 
consideration by the Board in support of clemency.  The Board determined that the 
character of service the applicant received was not in error or unjust.

2.  After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board determined 
that relief was not warranted.

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.


ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S):

Not Applicable



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 Army Board for Correction of Military Records 
(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.  AR 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  
Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for 
misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of 
misconduct, and commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, 
convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absence without leave. Action will be 
taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that 
rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed.  Army policy states that an under 
other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate , but a 
general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be 
granted 

3.  AR 635-200 also states 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. 

4.  AR 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, prescribes policies and 
procedures for completion of the DD Form 214.  It stated, based on the specific 
separation authority, the source of the SPD code and narrative reason for separation 
was AR 635-5-1 (SPD Codes).

5.  RA 635-5-1 states that SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that 
identify reasons for and types of separation from active duty.  The SPD code of "JKA" is 
the correct code for Soldiers separating under AR 635-200, chapter 14 by reason of 
misconduct. 

6.  AR 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program) governs 
eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the 
Regular Army, U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard.  Chapter 3 prescribes the 
basic eligibility for prior-service applicants for enlistment and includes a list of Armed 
Forces RE codes. 

*	RE code 1 applies to persons who completed an initial term of active service who 
were fully qualified for enlistment when separated
*	RE code 3 applies to persons who are not qualified for reentry or continuous 
service at the time of separation, but the disqualification is waivable
*	RE code 4 applies to persons separated from their last period of service with a 
non-waivable disqualification

7.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference, in effect at the time, stipulated that an RE code 
of 3 would be assigned to members separated under these provisions with an SPD 
code of “JKA.” 

8.  On 25 July 2018, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness 
issued guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of 
Military/Naval Records (BCM/NRs) regarding equity, injustice, or clemency 
determinations.  Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal 
sentence.  BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the type of court-martial.  
However, the guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-
martial; it also applies to other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may 
be warranted based on equity or relief from injustice.  

      a.  This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and 
principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority.  In 
determining whether to grant relief based on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds, 
BCM/NRs shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn 
testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health 
conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was 
committed, and uniformity of punishment.  

	 b.  Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of 
service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not 
result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses 
or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for 
the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization.


ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20190002989


4

1