APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his reentry (RE) code of RE-3 be corrected to an RE code of RE-1.
APPLICANT STATES: He was assigned the wrong RE code either in error or unjustly. He was discharged in pay grade E-5, was on the promotion list, and did not have any lost time.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 September 1981, was awarded the military occupational specialty of administrative specialist, served continuously, and was promoted to pay grade E-5 and recommended to be promoted to pay grade E-6.
On 31 January 1994 the applicants commander requested authority to retain the applicant beyond the expiration of his term of service (ETS) due to his being named as a respondent in an Article 86 investigation (an investigation conducted to determine the reason for an individuals AWOL), and the expectation that the investigation and resultant court-martial would go beyond his ETS.
On 7 February 1994 a phone conversation took place which was recorded on an OF 271, Conversation Record, which shows that the applicants command had contacted higher headquarters for guidance on the applicants status. He had been scheduled to ETS on 1 February 1994 but had departed AWOL on 27 January 1994. The higher headquarters directed that instead of going though the trouble of bringing the applicant back to his unit, to discharge him in absentia.
Accordingly, on 7 February 1994 he was honorably discharged due to completion of his required service. His DD Form 214 shows that he had served 12 years, 5 months and 5 days of active duty and was assigned an RE code of RE-3.
The applicants DA Form 2A, Personnel Qualification Record, item 33, Reenlistment Eligibility/Ineligibility, is coded ineligible and lists a transaction code of 9W. Army Regulation 680-29 specifies that transaction code 9W means that the individual is ineligible for reenlistment due to the individuals acceptance of nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ.
RE-3 indicates that a person was not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable. However, under today's standards, the Department has imposed strict enlistment standards to meet the reduced demands of the Army and a very limited number of waivers are being granted.
RE-3B indicates that a person had lost time during his last enlistment.
Army Regulation 27-10, paragraph 3-37, specifies that the report of proceedings under Article 15, UCMJ, is filed locally in unit files, and is destroyed at the end of 2 years, for soldiers in pay grade E-4 and below. For noncommissioned officers, the report of proceedings is filed in either the performance portion or the restricted portion of the soldiers Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), as designated by the commander imposing the punishment.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. It appears that the applicant was assigned a code of
RE-3 due to his receiving nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ. Although the proceedings under Article 15 is not contained in the applicants records, it is presumed that he was given an Article 15 and it was either locally filed and destroyed (if he received it prior to his being promoted to pay grade E-5) or it is contained in the restricted portion of his OMPF, which was not provided to the Board.
2. In addition, despite the absence of lost time being listed on the applicants DD Form 214, the fact that his command was conducting an Article 86 investigation on his unauthorized absence prior to his ETS and the fact that he was not available to sign his DD Form 214 both show that he was AWOL at the time of his separation. As such, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it must be presumed that he should have also been assigned a code of RE-3B.
3. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicants 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
DENY APPLICATION
Karl F. Schneider
Acting Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050014451C070206
The applicant's records contain a copy of DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action), which shows that he was present for duty (PDY) after being confined by civil authorities (CCA) effective 25 December 1986. 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. It also shows the SPD code with a corresponding RE code and states that more than one RE code could apply.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130021749
His DD Form 214 for the period ending 20 May 2013 shows he was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 4. Effective 20 June 1991, half payment of non-disability separation pay is authorized to service members of the RA and RC, in pertinent part, who involuntarily have separated from active duty and have met each of the following four conditions: * the member is on active duty and has completed at least 6...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060679C070421
Item I1, Section I, Enlisted Records Brief, prepared on 12 April 2001 shows applicant’s rank and Date of Rank (DOR) as: SPC 19960615. His DD Form 214 correctly shows his rank as PFC; however, the date of rank shown in item 12h is not correct. The date of rank shown on the DD Form 214 is that for the former rank of Specialist Four held by the applicant before he received nonjudicial punishment.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001056723C070420
Although the specifics associated with the false official statement are not contained in records available to the Board the statement submitted by the applicant in his behalf to his division commander in which he “nonconcurred” with the court-martial, and included as evidence with his application to this Board, indicates the statement revolved around changing a code in his records which would permit him to reenlist. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007651
The applicant requests the reentry (RE) code on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be changed from RE-3B to RE-1 in order to reenter the Army. The applicant provides the following additional documentary evidence in support of his application: a. DD Form 214, dated 22 December 1983. b. Waiver Packet, dated 4 October 1983, for Disqualification for Enlistment/Reenlistment in the Regular Army for In-Service Personnel. The DD Form 214 he was issued at the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9511111C070209
The applicant requests that his reentry (RE) code of RE-3B be corrected to the RE code he should have been assigned. Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment. He was informed at the time he signed the DCSS that he would be assigned an RE code of RE-3A.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080016724
The applicant requests correction of his records to show he was authorized separation pay upon his discharge in May 1983. On 4 October 1981, the commander of the Soldier who accidently fired his weapon submitted a report of disciplinary or administrative action and indicated that the aggravated assault was unfounded and that a written reprimand/admonition was rendered to that Soldier for dereliction of duty. With respect to the applicant's contention that the Board should conduct an...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080015578
A separation code of "LBK" was used for Regular Army Soldiers eligible to reenlist who were released from active duty on completion of enlistment and transferred to the Reserve Component to complete a military service obligation. The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that RE codes RE-1 and RE-3 were the applicable RE codes assigned for individually voluntarily REFRAD at the completion of enlistment and transferred to the Reserve Component to complete military service obligation. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000901C070205
The applicant provided a memorandum for record, dated 6 October 2005; an excerpt from Army Regulation 135-155 (Promotion of Commissioned Officers and Warrant Officers other than General Officers); a coversheet from the United States Army Reserve (USAR), dated 28 August 2001; a USAR Personnel Command promotion notification letter, dated 18 April 2003; six pages from the Total Army Personnel Database (TAPDB) Transaction History; a copy of an undated data screen synopsis; a Projected Promotion...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130022397,
The applicant adds that the Article 15 clearly stated that the portion of the punishment pertaining to the reduction in grade was suspended. After information is verified on the DA Form 5110, supporting finance documentation showing execution of the reduction or forfeitures, as well as the verification of OMPF filings by the OMPF custodian will be retained for 2 years after the date the punishment was imposed. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the...