APPLICANT REQUESTS: That her reentry eligibility (RE) code be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: That she was not given a fair chance when she entered the Army. She tried to help a friend commit an illegal act and the friend, fearing discovery, placed all of the blame on her.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
She was born on 12 October 1973 and enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years on 4 September 1992. Following completion of basic training, she was assigned to Fort Sam Houston, Texas, for advanced individual training (AIT) as a medic.
While at Fort Sam Houston, the applicant was accused of stealing a fellow soldiers ATM card and removing money from the soldiers account. She was also accused of stealing a second soldiers telephone calling card and using it to make long distance telephone calls.
The applicant explained that, in the case of the ATM card, she was only helping the ATM card owner to perpetrate a fraud. The ATM card owner needed money and devised a scheme whereby the applicant would steal the card and withdraw money from the account. The money would then be given to the ATM card owner who would not have to repay it because it was stolen. The applicant said that, after she withdrew $250 and gave it to the card owner, the owner changed the story, accusing the applicant of theft.
The applicant stated that she admitted stealing the ATM card and a second soldiers phone card after investigators told her that they had evidence against her (telephone records, witness statements, etc.) and that she could be court-martialed. She signed a statement admitting the thefts in hopes of receiving a less severe punishment.
The applicants commander recommended the applicant be separated for unfitness under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200. The applicant was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to her. She consulted with legal counsel who advised of the effects of an uncharacterized discharge. She was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in her own behalf, but he declined to do so. The appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of an uncharacterized discharge. On 19 March 1993, she was discharged under the provisions of chapter 11, AR 635-200. She had 6 months and 16 days of creditable active service and no lost time. Her RE code was RE-3, not eligible for reenlistment without a waiver.
The applicant appealed to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) seeking to have her discharge recharacterized to honorable. In a personal appearance hearing on 8 March 1996, the ADRB denied her request.
AR 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 11 of that regulation, in effect at the time, provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of personnel because of unsatisfactory performance or conduct (or both). This policy applied to individuals who had demonstrated that they were not qualified for retention because they could not adapt socially or emotionally to military life, or because they lacked the aptitude, ability, motivation or self discipline for military service, or that they had demonstrated characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued service.
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. AR 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 of prior service applicants for enlistment. That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes, including RA RE codes.
RE code 3 (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, and those discharged under the provisions of chapters 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14 of Army Regulation 635-200.
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. 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 the aforementioned requirement
2. The applicant committed serious misconduct for which she was administratively separated. Discharge was effected in accordance with applicable regulations, and the discharge, to include the assigned RE code, appropriately characterizes the applicants limited service and misconduct.
3. 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
DENY APPLICATION
Karl F. Schneider
Acting Director
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010270
The applicant requests, in effect, that her bad conduct discharge be upgraded to an honorable or general discharge. The applicant's military records show that she enlisted in the New York Army National Guard 25 August 2003 following prior service in the Regular Army from 29 July 1996 to 6 August 1997. However, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records does not grant requests solely for the purpose of making an applicant eligible for benefits.
ARMY | DRB | CY2010 | AR20100001098
Applicant Name: ????? Army Regulation 635-200 also provides that a Soldiers service will be uncharacterized when the separation is initiated while the Soldier is in entry level status. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: No Change Other: No Change RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: No Change Legend: AWOL Absent Without Leave GCM General Court Martial NA Not applicable SCM Summary Court...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070014159
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 12 June 1989, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge UOTHC. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022192
On 23 March 1992, his commander informed him that he was initiating action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, for commission of a serious offense. He stated the reason for the proposed action was the applicant's field-grade NJP for larceny. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter.
ARMY | DRB | CY2007 | AR20070016067
Applicant Name: Application Receipt Date: 2007/11/08 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. Discharge Under Review Unit CDR Recommended Discharge: Date: NIF Discharge Received: Date: 061122 Chapter: 5-11 AR: 635-200 Reason: Failed Medical/Physical/Procurement Standards RE: SPD: JFW Unit/Location: B Co, 232d Medical Training Bn, Fort Sam Houston, TX Time Lost: None Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None Courts-Martial (Charges/Dates/Punishment): NOne Counseling Records Available: Yes...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014618
The DD Form 214 she was issued shows she was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 3, as a result of court-martial with a bad conduct characterization of service. The evidence of record shows the applicant's trial by a general court-martial was warranted by the gravity of the offenses charged. Her conviction, confinement, and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and her...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090004559
In a statement submitted on his own behalf, the applicant asked that he receive a general discharge, rather than a discharge under other than honorable conditions. The appropriate separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial and directed that an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate be issued. The applicant's military service records show that he voluntarily requested discharge for...
ARMY | DRB | CY2011 | AR20110006006
Applicant Name: ????? In the mean time I changed my MOS to avoid being at the same training location as the other soldier and was put in training at Ft. Sam Houston. On 15 April 2008, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, voluntarily waived consideration of her case by an administrative separation board contingent upon her receiving a characterization of service no less favorable than an honorable discharge and did not submit a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058421C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The VA may not be considering these two discharges, particularly the discharge of 7 September 1970, to be completed terms of service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016437
A Soldier had reported someone had stolen her military identification (ID) card, used it to open a Circuit City account and purchase computer equipment and other items, obtain a mail box at the Fort Irwin post office, and acquire a loan from a financial institution. On 5 June 1998, the separation authority approved the discharge action, directed the applicant be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank and that she be discharged with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The DD...