| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Linda D. Simmons | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214, be amended to show his rank and grade as Specialist, E-4 and that his reentry (RE) code be changed to RE 1.
APPLICANT STATES: That his highest grade earned was E-4 and he was not demoted. Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) case number AR2001061359 shows his highest grade held as E-4. The time restriction for an RE-3 has now been met. He provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 16 March 1990. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 88K (Watercraft Operator). His Personnel Qualification Record Part II, DA Form 2-1, shows he was advanced to Private, E-2 on 1 November 1990 and to Private First Class, E-3 on 14 February 1991.
A copy of the applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record Part I, DA Form 2A, dated 10 November 1992 shows the applicant’s grade as Specialist Four and his date of rank as 1 November 1992.
A General Counseling Form, DA Form 4856, dated 3 November 1992 shows the applicant was counseled on 2 November 1992 for passing checks with insufficient funds. His grade is noted as E-3 on the form. The applicant signed the form on 3 November 1992 listing his grade as E-3.
A DA Form 4856 dated 4 November 1992 shows the applicant was counseled on 4 November 1992 for failing to appear for physical training formation. The applicant signed the form on 4 November 1992 listing his grade as E-3.
On 10 November 1992, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to appear for a movement and for missing physical training formation. The Article 15 notes the applicant’s grade as E-3.
On 25 November 1992, a local bar to reenlistment was initiated on the applicant. His rank was noted as E-3 on the paperwork.
An Army Physical Fitness Test Scorecard, DA Form 705, shows the applicant completed the Army Physical Fitness Test on 19 February, 5 March, 30 April, and 26 May 1993. His grade is noted as E-3 for all four tests.
On 23 June 1993, action was initiated to separate the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 for unsatisfactory performance. His rank and grade are noted as Private First Class, E-3 on all related documents to include his separation orders and his DD Form 214. On 8 July 1993, the applicant was discharged with a general discharge under honorable conditions. His DD Form 214 shows his rank as Private First Class and his grade as E-3 (with an incorrect date of rank listed as 1 January 1991). He was given an RE code of 3. The applicant signed the DD Form 214.
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 waivable. Soldiers who separate under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 or who separate with a local bar to reenlistment in effect fall into this category.
Recruiting personnel have the responsibility for initially determining whether an individual meets current enlistment criteria. They are required to process a request for waiver under the provisions of chapter 4, Army Regulation 601-210, Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program.
The applicant applied to the ADRB for an upgrade of his discharge. On 12 October the ADRB determined that his discharge should be upgraded to fully honorable. In the ADRB’s case write-up it was noted that the highest grade achieved by the applicant was E-4.
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. Only one document in the applicant’s records indicated that he was promoted to Specialist, E-4 on 1 November 1992. Promotion orders are not available. Every other document subsequent to 1 November 1992, including documents the applicant signed, indicated he was a Private First Class, E-3. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that orders may have been issued promoting the applicant to E-4 but were subsequently revoked. The ADRB’s listing of his highest grade achieved as E-4, without substantiating evidence, is insufficient for the Board to grant the relief requested.
3. The Board notes that the applicant’s date of rank to Private First Class, E-3 as listed on his DD Form 214 is incorrect. As the applicant does not request that correction, however, the Board will take no action on that error.
4. In view of the reason for the applicant’s separation and the fact he had a local bar to reenlistment in effect at the time of his separation, the assigned reentry code of RE-3 was and still is appropriate. The applicant was disqualified from reenlistment, but the disqualification is waivable. Since enlistment criteria does change, and since an individual has the right to apply for a waiver, the applicant should periodically visit his local recruiting station to determine if he should apply for a waiver.
5. 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
__jns___ __lds___ __jtm___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001065437 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020321 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 100.03 |
| 2. | 100.00 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY1980-1989 | 8806822
APPLICANT REQUESTS : Correction of his military records by changing the reason for his discharge and his reentry eligibility (RE) code which would allow enlistment. On 2 September 1987, his commander submitted a request recommending that the applicant be discharged under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 11. He indicated that the applicant arrived at the DLI on 12 May 1987; that, since his arrival, he had developed chronic anxiety related problems; that he excelled in English language...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140015492
She could not pass the APFT and never had. In order to be eligible for promotion to SGT, a Soldier must have a passing APFT score among other requirements and any previously-initiated flag must have been lifted from his or her record. ____________X____________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110018710
The applicant requests his grade and pay grade on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) with a separation date of 26 April 2004 be corrected to show specialist (SPC)/pay grade E-4. There are no DA Forms 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, UCMJ) in his official military personnel file (OMPF). The Total Army Personnel Data Base (TAPDB) shows his grade as PFC with a date of rank of 6 February 2004.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072725C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record part II, DA Form 2-1, shows his enlistment rank and grade of Specialist, E-4 with a date of rank of 17 November 1997. On 3 January 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered the applicant’s request to upgrade his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120006125
The applicant requests reconsideration of her earlier request for correction of her military records to show her nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was set aside, all rights and privileges were restored, the NJP was expunged from her record, and she was advanced to specialist/pay grade E-4. The evidence of record clearly shows the applicant accepted NJP and was reduced to pay grade E-2. The governing regulation clearly states that NJP for Soldiers in the grade of E-4 and below, with less than 3...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050009087C070206
The applicant provided a DA Form 4856 dated 5 July 2003 that indicated the applicant’s first sergeant counseled her regarding the above. By DA Form 4187 dated 5 July 2003, the applicant’s commander approved her reduction to PFC effective 5 July 2003 under the authority of National Guard Regulation 600-200, paragraph 11-26. The USAHRC IG also noted that the applicant was attached to the Medical Hold Company at Fort Bliss, TX on 12 August 2003; therefore, she had no obligation to turn in her...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001059592C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 8 April 1992, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070006367C071029
He requested to be present before an administrative reduction board. Army Regulation 600-8-19, paragraph 7-6 states the commander starting the reduction action will present documents showing the Soldier’s inefficiency to the reduction authority. The applicant did not provide the testimony from the reduction board hearing or the action of the approval authority in his reduction for inefficiency case, so this Board cannot determine how he presented his defense or how the government presented...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100021699
The applicant requests correction to Items 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank), 4b (Pay Grade), and 29 (Date of Time Lost During This Period) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 21 July 2010. He provides: * a DA Form 2173 (Statement of Medical Examination and Duty Status) * a DA Form 31 (Request and Authorization for Leave) * his civilian doctor's recommendation for extension of convalescent leave * a DA Form 4856 (Developmental Counseling...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074464C070403
A DA Form 4856 dated 28 November 1998 shows that the applicant was counseled that date regarding his elimination from the 75B course because he showed little desire to be a good soldier, that he did the minimum it took to get by, and that he was being recommended for discharge from the service. On 8 December 1988, counsel for the applicant indicated that, although a record of counseling was included in the separation packet, it failed to comply with the requirements of Army Regulation...