IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 February 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090011133 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his reentry (RE) code on his corrected DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 7 May 1997 be changed. 2. The applicant states, in effect, that the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded his DD Form 214 for the period ending 7 May 1997. However, the ADRB did not change his RE code, because he did not ask for the correction. Therefore, he requests that his RE code of 3 be changed on his DD Form 214. 3. The applicant provides his corrected DD Form 214 for the period ending 7 May 1997; a five-page ADRB Case Report and Directive, dated 12 April 2007; and an ADRB memorandum, dated 15 June 2007. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 1 March 1989 and successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training. He was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11M (Fighting Vehicle Infantryman) and was later awarded MOS 63H (Track Vehicle Repairman). On 1 October 1992, the applicant reenlisted for 4 years and on 1 February 1996, he reenlisted for an additional 4 years. 2. On 23 April 1997, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being absent without leave for the period 14 March through 29 March 1997. 3. The applicant's discharge proceedings are not available. 4. The applicant's service personnel records do not contain the facts and circumstances surrounding his separation process. However, his ADRB Case Report and Directive Case Number AR20070000421, dated 12 April 2007, shows he was discharged on 7 May 1997 under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) by reason of misconduct with service characterized as under other than honorable conditions. 5. On 12 April 2007, the ADRB determined that the authority for approval of the applicant's separation action rested with the General Court-Martial Convening Authority (GCMA) and that someone other than the GCMA approved the applicant's discharge. Therefore, the ADRB found that the applicant's characterization of service was improper and voted to upgrade his discharge to fully honorable and to change his narrative reason for discharge to Secretarial Authority. The ADRB voted not to change his RE code of 3. 6. The applicant was reissued a DD Form 214 that shows his authority for discharge was changed to Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-3 and the narrative reason for his discharge was changed to Secretarial Authority. Item 24 (Character of Service) shows the entry "HONORABLE," item 26 shows a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JKF, and item 27(Reentry Code) shows an RE code of 3. 7. Army Regulation 601-210 covers the eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the RA and the US Army Reserve. Paragraph 3-21 of the regulation states that RE-3 applies to a Soldier who is not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but the disqualification is waivable. 8. Recruiting personnel have the responsibility for initially determining whether an individual meets current enlistment criteria. They are required to process a request for waiver under the provisions of chapter 4, Army Regulation 601-210. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant contends that his RE code should be changed. The available evidence shows the applicant was separated from the military for misconduct. The ADRB reviewed the applicant's case and determined that his discharge was improper based on a technicality. The ADRB voted to upgrade the characterization of his service to honorable and to change the narrative reason for his discharge to Secretarial Authority. However, the ADRB consciously elected not to change his RE code of 3. 2. The applicant has failed to provide any further evidence of error or sufficiently mitigating factors to establish a basis for changing his assigned RE code. Further, the assigned RE code is still appropriate. 3. If the applicant's intention is to enlist the military, this does not mean that he has been completely denied the opportunity to enlist. He is eligible to apply for a waiver, he has the option of visiting his local recruiting station and consulting with recruiting personnel who are required to process waiver requests. The applicant should understand that other services may have different enlistment requirements. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ 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 that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. _______ _ _X______ ___ CHAIRPERSON 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. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090011133 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20090011133 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1