MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:          4 February 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2002079939

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. Joseph A. Adriance 		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Ronald J. Weaver		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A -  Application for correction of military 
                             records
	Exhibit B -  Military Personnel Records (including
	                  advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of LBK and his Reentry (RE) code of RE-3 be changed.  

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that his original separation document (DD Form 214) contained no authority and reason for discharge.  He claims that the SPD and RE codes were entered on his DD Form 214 after his separation, and were the result of a vendetta against him.  He also contends that the original separation document showed no information in the sections containing the authority and reason for discharge, SPD code, and RE code.  He further states that he requested a copy of his DD Form 214 in 1991, and this information was not provided until 1998.  

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He served on active duty from 7 November 1973 through 9 November 1976.  He was trained and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 31N (Tactical Circuit Control Specialist), and the highest rank he attained was private first class/E-3.

The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  However, it does reveal a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on two separate occasions.  In July 1975, he accepted NJP for being absent without leave (AWOL) on 13 June 1975; and in September 1974, he again accepted NJP for being AWOL on 16 September 1974.  

The applicant’s record also contains a Bar to Enlistment/Reenlistment Certificate (DA Form 4126-R), dated 16 September 1976, in which his unit commander recommended that he be barred from reenlistment.  The unit commander cited the following actions by the applicant as his reason for taking this action:  NJP record; two Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) reports on which he was the subject; an incident of his signing in from leave late on 17 August 1976; his missing his separation briefing on 18 August 1976; his being absent from his unit on 21 August 1976; and his being counseled on 24 August 1976, for substandard appearance.  The bar to reenlistment was approved by the appropriate authority on 1 November 1976.  

On 9 November 1976, the applicant was released from active duty (REFRAD) under the provisions of chapter 2, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of completion of required service.  At the time of his discharge, he had completed a total of 3 years of creditable active military service and had accrued three days of time lost due to AWOL.  

The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on the date of his separation shows that he was assigned a SPD code of LBK and an RE code of RE-3.  Although there is a line entered in the authority and reason block as indicated by the applicant, there is not conclusive evidence to show that information was added to this form subsequent to its preparation.  

There is no indication in the record to show that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for a change to the authority and reason for his discharge within its 15 year statute of limitations.  

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.  It states, in pertinent part, that the SPD code of LBK is the appropriate code to assign to soldiers separating at the completion of required service who were ineligible for, barred from or otherwise denied reenlistment.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table establishes that the RE-3 will be the code assigned to members separated with this SPD code.  

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that information was added to his separation document after his REFRAD and that the original DD Form 214 did not have the authority and reason for separation, or the SPD and RE codes entered on it.  However, the Board finds insufficient evidence to support this claim.  

2.  By regulation, SPD code LBK and RE-3 code are the proper codes to assign members separating at the completion of their required service when they are ineligible for, barred from, or otherwise denied reenlistment.  Notwithstanding the applicant’s claims, the Board finds no evidence of record or independent evidence provided by the applicant that shows that his DD Form 214 was improperly altered subsequent to his separation.

3.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was barred from reenlistment at the time of his REFRAD and that his separation processing, to include the SPD and RE code assignments, was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulations.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, the Board is also satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and that the applicant’s rights were protected throughout the separation process.  Thus, the Board concludes that the SPD and RE codes were and still are appropriate.

4.  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 this requirement. 

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__FNE__  __JEA  _  __ECP __  DENY APPLICATION 

		    Carl W. S. Chun
		    Director, Army Board for Correction
    of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002079939	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2003/02/04	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1976/11/09	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	ETS	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  4	100.0300	
2.  191	110.0200	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.