| Mr. | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. | Member | ||
| Mr. | Member |
| Mr. | Loren G. Harrell | Director | |
| Mr. | Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
2. The applicant requests, in effect, that the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of MDS and the reentry (RE) code of 3 given him at the time of separation be changed.
3. The applicant states, in effect, that the MDS SPD code stands for a bar to reenlistment at the time of discharge and his bar was lifted prior to his discharge.
4. The applicant’s military records show that he reenlisted on 9 December 1994 for 3 years and an overseas assignment of choice to Korea while in Friedberg, Germany. At the time of his enlistment the applicant had completed 3 years, 3 months, and 17 days of honorable service and had attained the rank of specialist/E-4.
5. The evidence of record contains a memorandum prepared by the senior retention noncommissioned officer (NCO) which indicates that the applicant had been erroneously reenlisted before entering the 8 month reenlistment window. The memorandum goes on to explain that the erroneous reenlistment was based on an administrative error and there was no evidence of deception by anyone involved in the process. The senior retention NCO indicated the chain of command was notified and provided the options available to the applicant.
6. On 3 April 1995 the applicant was counseled on the various options available to him. The applicant indicated that he did not wish to waive his reenlistment option or the commitment made to him at the time of his reenlistment and that he desired and requested separation from the service, under the provisions of paragraph 7-15, AR 635-200, by reason of an erroneous reenlistment.
7. The applicant’s unit commander concurred with the applicant’s request for separation and recommended that the applicant’s service be characterized as honorable. He also commented that the applicant had been barred from reenlistment but that it had been lifted on 12 June 1995, prior to his reenlistment, based on his improved duty performance; however, the commander indicated that the applicant’s duty performance and conduct had deteriorated since his reenlistment and that another bar to reenlistment had been initiated, this action is not documented in the record.
8. The appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request and directed his release from active duty with an HD. Accordingly, on 21 August 1995 the applicant was discharged after completing 4 years of active military service. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) issued the applicant documented the authority for separation as AR 635-200, Chapter 7, Section IV; an SPD code of MDS; and an RE code of 3.
8. AR 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (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. The SPD code of MDS is the appropriate code, provided by AR 635-5-1, for soldiers separating under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 7, Section IV for defective enlistment agreement.
9. AR 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribes the separation documents that are furnished individuals who are retired, discharged, or released from active military service or the control of the Army. It establishes standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214. Table 2-3 is an SPD/RE code cross reference table and establishes that soldiers separated with an SPD code of MDS should be assigned an RE code of 2 if there are no other disqualification’s contained in the record that would warrant and more restrictive RE code.
10. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 7, Section IV establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for defective or unfulfilled enlistment or reenlistment agreements.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The Board concluded that the SPD code issued the applicant was correct based on the authority and reason for separation. However, based on the lack of documentation in the record supporting the statement of the applicant’s unit commander that a second bar to reenlistment had been initiated, subsequent to the one lifted on 12 June 1995, the Board found the appropriate RE code for the applicant’s separation would have been an RE code of 2.
2. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by assigning an RE code of 2 and issuing a corrected DD Form 214.
2. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
______________________
CHAIRPERSON
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705839
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 indicated...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705839C070209
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 Board considered the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002078196C070215
The Board considered the following evidence: APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his reenlistment eligibility code (RE Code) be changed. The RE-3 Code that was given is correct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018479
However, the DD Form 214 he was issued at the time of his separation shows he was discharged on 12 November 1995 in accordance with chapter 7, section IV, of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) by reason of a defective enlistment agreement. The "MDS" SPD code is the correct code for Soldiers separating under chapter 7 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of defective enlistment. However, his record contains a properly-constituted DD Form 214 that shows he was honorably released...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004100335C070208
The applicant states, in effect, that a change to the SPD code in question is necessary in order for the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) to remit the debt he incurred based on his receipt of a Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB). The separation regulation further states that when it is determined that an enlistment is defective or cannot be fulfilled, a Regular Army soldier serving on a second or later enlistment, having been discharged from a previous enlistment before ETS to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9609758C070209
He was given a separation code of KGH, and a reentry code of 3. He had completed a total of 9 years, 1 month, and 26 days active military service, and 2 years, 8 months, and 21 days inactive military service. Soldiers whose continued service is not warranted receive a QMP bar to reenlistment. Based on the applicants selection of Option 2 when he was notified of the DA bar to reenlistment, he should have been involuntarily discharged under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-8...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086524C070212
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the noncommissioned officer evaluation report covering the period 990501 [1 May 1999] thru 000131 [31 January 2000] be removed from her military records; that her removal from active duty pursuant to the QMP (Qualitative Management Program) be set aside; that her RE Code be changed from "4" to RE Code "1" on the grounds that she was fully qualified for reenlistment in the Army; and that she be retired pursuant to the provisions of the Temporary Early...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130013312
The evidence of record shows that the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 11, AR 635-200, by reason of entry level performance and conduct; specifically for refusing to train since learning he would not be able to obtain a security clearance required for attendance at the Officers Candidate School (OCS). The applicant was separated from the Army on 14 July 2010, with an uncharacterized discharge. It states a separation...
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060013350
Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed? Current ENL Service: 2 Yrs, 10 Mos, 24 Days ????? The intermediate commander reviewed the proposed discharge action and recommended approval with a general discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080001348
His commander initiated an informal investigation to determine if his reenlistment was fraudulent; c. the applicant did not deliberately conceal any disqualifying factor in his reenlistment. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The IO determined that the applicant's reenlistment was neither fraudulent nor defective; rather, an erroneous reenlistment.