RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 OCTOBER 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050000921 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. Mr. Carl W. S. Chun Director Ms. Gale J. Thomas Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Mr. Mark Manning Chairperson Mr. Larry Bergquist Member Ms. Carmen Duncan 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 that his records be corrected by upgrading his reenlistment code (RE Code). 2. The applicant states his discharge was upgraded from general to honorable, however his RE Code did not change and has prevented him for obtaining Government employment. 3. The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) in support of his request. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which occurred on 9 June 1983. The application submitted in this case is dated 21 December 2004. 2. Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of justice to do so. In this case, the ABCMR will conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file. 3. The applicant enlisted and entered active duty on 18 June 1980. He served in Germany from January 1982 to April 1983. 4. On 4 May 1982, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for disobeying a lawful order. His punishment was extra duty and a forfeiture of pay. 5. The facts and circumstances concerning the applicant’s discharge proceedings are not in the available records. There is no evidence that explains when or why his discharge was upgraded. However his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows in item 27 (Remarks) “RE3 not eligible for reenlistment.” His DD Form 214 indicates he was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 4, for expiration term of service, with a Separation Code (SPD) of “JBK” and a Reenlistment Code of “RE-3.” 6. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Army Regulation 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the US Army Reserve. Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment. That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes, including RA RE codes. 7. RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable. Certain persons who have received nonjudicial punishment are so disqualified, as are persons with bars to reenlistment. 8. Army Regulation 635-5-1 states that SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations, which identify reasons for, and types of separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DOD and the military services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. It notes that “JBK” is the appropriate SPD code for individuals involuntarily discharged upon completion of required active service. 9. A “cross-reference” table, provided by officials from Separations Branch at the U.S. Army Human Resources Command-Alexandria, confirms that “RE-3” is the appropriate RE code for individuals who separated with an SPD code of JBK. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The evidence confirms that the applicant’s RE code was assigned based on the fact that he was involuntarily separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 4. He received the appropriate RE code associated with his discharge. 2. There is no evidence in the applicant’s available records nor did he provide documentation to substantiate his claim that his honorable discharge was the result of having his discharge upgraded and that his reenlistment code was not upgraded to match his discharge. It is unclear as to whether or not the Army Discharge Review Board upgraded the applicant’s characterization of service, however there have been occasions when the characterization of service has been changed and a decision made that the reenlistment code remain unchanged. 3. The applicant is advised that although his RE-3 was properly assigned; this does not mean that he is totally disqualified from returning to military service. The disqualification upon which the RE-3 was based may be waived for enlistment purposes. The applicant is advised that if he desires to enlist, he should contact a local recruiter who can best advise him on his eligibility for returning to military service. Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the service at the time and may process enlistment waivers for the applicant’s RE Code. 4. In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy that requirement. 5. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 9 June 1983; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 8 June 1986. The applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to timely file in this case. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___MM__ __LB ___ __CD ___ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: 1. The Board determined that 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. 2. As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year statute of limitations prescribed by law. Therefore, there is insufficient basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for correction of the records of the individual concerned. ______Mark Manning________ CHAIRPERSON INDEX CASE ID AR20050000921 SUFFIX RECON YYYYMMDD DATE BOARDED 20051004 TYPE OF DISCHARGE (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) DATE OF DISCHARGE YYYYMMDD DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR . . . . . DISCHARGE REASON BOARD DECISION DENY REVIEW AUTHORITY ISSUES 1. 112.00 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.