| Mr. Loren G. Harrell | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred K. McCoy | Chairperson | |
| Mr. George D. Paxson | Member | |
| Mr. James M. Alward | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: 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.
APPLICANT STATES: 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.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant’s military records show that he reenlisted on 9 December 1994 for 3 years and for an overseas assignment of choice to Korea, while stationed 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.
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.
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.
The applicant’s unit commander concurred with the applicant’s request for separation and recommended that the applicant’s service be characterized as honorable. 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; the SPD code MDS; and an RE code of 3 (ineligible for enlistment unless a waiver is granted).
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 was the appropriate code for the applicant based on the guidance provided in AR 635-5-1 for soldiers separating under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 7, Section IV for a defective enlistment agreement. Additionally, Table 2-3 (SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table), AR 635-5 (Separation Documents) establishes RE Code 3 as the proper reentry code to assign to soldiers separated for this reason.
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.
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. The Board concludes that the SPD code of MDS was the appropriate code, in accordance with the guidance contained in AR 635-5-1, for soldiers separating under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 7, Section IV for a defective enlistment agreement.
2. In view of the circumstances in this case, the assigned reentry eligibility code was and still is appropriate. This is supported by the guidance contained in Table 2-3 (SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table), AR 635-5 (Separation Documents).
3. 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.
4. 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
Loren G. Harrell
Director
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 | CY1997 | 9705803
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) issued...
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 | 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 | CY1996 | 9608782C070209
The commander cited the reason for separation as the applicants personality disorder and recommended a description of service as uncharacterized, based on the applicant being in an entry level status. Any individual who has served for less than l80 days at the time his or her commander initiated separation action, and is not being separated for serious misconduct, will be given an uncharacterized discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 establishes that a soldier separated for a personality...
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 | 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 | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007340
The DD Form 214 he was issued for this period of service shows he was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 7, section IV, by reason of defective enlistment agreement with an uncharacterized character of service. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (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 evidence of record confirms the applicant was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9707405
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. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040005281C070208
On 25 January 2002, the separation authority approved the applicant’s separation under the provisions of paragraph 7-17, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of fraudulent entry, and directed that the applicant’s service be characterized as honorable. On 28 May 2004, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) concluded that the applicant’s discharge was proper and there was no evidence of any error or injustice in his separation processing. The DD Form 214 issued as a result of the ADRB action...