| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Thomas F. Baxter | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That her reentry eligibility (RE) code be changed to one less severe. In effect, this constitutes a request for removal or waiver of those disqualifications which preclude reenlistment.
APPLICANT STATES: That she was discharged and given an RE 3 because she had a sexual relationship with a fellow soldier in training. This code was unjust because the other soldier did not get discharged. She provides her Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214, as supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
She was born on 26 September 1982. She enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 July 2000.
On 6 September 2000, the applicant’s commander recommended her separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11 for entry-level status performance and conduct; specifically, sexual intercourse with another soldier in training and absence without leave on 30 August 2000. The recommendation noted that she received an Article 15 but it is not available. The applicant was advised of her rights, she acknowledged notification and did not submit a statement in her own behalf. She completed a Soldier’s Questionnaire in which she stated in part “I learned that I am a good soldier but I am easily swayed to do wrong…”
The appropriate commander approved her discharge with an uncharacterized discharge.
On 14 September 2000, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11, for entry-level performance and conduct. She was given a re-entry code of 3. She had completed 2 months and 4 days of creditable active service.
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11 sets the policy and prescribes procedures for separating members who were voluntarily enlisted in the Regular Army, National Guard or Army Reserve, are in an entry level status and, before the date of the initiation of separation action, have completed no more than 180 days of creditable continuous service, and have demonstrated that they are not qualified for retention. The following conditions are illustrations of conduct that does not
qualify for retention: cannot or will not adapt socially or emotionally to military
life; cannot meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation or self-discipline; or have demonstrated character and behavior 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. Army Regulation 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the U.S. Army Reserve. Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment. That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes, including RA RE codes. RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waiverable.
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 this requirement.
2. The Board does not have the particular circumstances surrounding the service of the soldier with whom the applicant had sexual intercourse and so cannot determine the differences between his case and hers. However, the Board notes that the applicant was not yet 18 years old when she enlisted nor not yet 18 years old when she was discharged. In her own statement she indicated that she was easily swayed to do wrong. The Board concludes that her command made an appropriate decision to discharge her with the possibility of reenlisting after she had matured.
3. Since enlistment criteria does change, and since an individual has the right to apply for a waiver, the applicant should periodically visit her local recruiting station (generally after 2 years have elapsed since her discharge) to determine if she should apply for a waiver.
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
__wtm___ __tfb___ __jtm___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001051509 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20010403 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UNCHAR |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 20000914 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, ch 11 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A04.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 100.03 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011460
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 7 October 2008 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20080011460 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The regulation states the reason for discharge based on separation code KFS is In lieu of trial by court-martial and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070018966
The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040004460C070208
On 26 November 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge. She stated that she told the Department of Social Services at the time that the statements were not true, but they did not want to believe her. In that recantation, she stated that she had told the Department of Social Services at the time that the statements were not true.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065973C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 14 October 1988, the applicant’s commander initiated separation action on the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-13, Personality Disorder. She requested consideration of her case by an administrative separation board, requested personal appearance before such a board, requested representation by counsel, and submitted a statement in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021888
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. 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. While the applicant requested a change of his RE code, it is necessary to consider whether the reason for his discharge should be changed since the RE code is based on the reason for discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080007862
The applicant acknowledges her actions were harmful to the units mission and states that she was a private and should have received Uniform Code of Military Justice discipline for her actions. The applicants battalion and brigade commanders cited the applicants support to the chain of command in determining the facts of the case and recommended approval of her request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial with an other than honorable discharge under the provisions of chapter 10...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011030
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. However, there is no evidence which shows she was a victim of sexual harassment. The applicant's RE code was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations at the time of her separation.
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130005448
After carefully examining the applicants record of service during the period of enlistment under review and the Discussion and Recommendation that follows, the Board determined that the characterization of service was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. The evidence contained in the applicants service record indicates that on 15 April 2011, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12b, AR...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130012932
She was discharged as a SPC/E-4. Army Regulation 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. However, Army Regulation 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070005056
The ADRB analysts assessment stated that the evidence of record showed that on 28 May 2003, the applicants commander notified her that she was being separated from the military service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct, by reason of misconduct-commission of a serious offense, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The commander further indicated that he was initiating separation proceedings based on the applicants wrongful use of...