| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deborah L. Brantley | Senior Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. John P. Infante | Member | |
| Ms. Regan K. Smith | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his RE (Reenlistment Eligibility) Code be changed from RE-4 to RE-3.
APPLICANT STATES: His discharge was recently upgraded and he would like the opportunity to enlist in the U.S. Army Reserve. He states that he is a “productive member of this country” and that he would like to fulfill his “commitment to the United States Army and [his] country.” In support of his request he submits a copy of the results of his appeal to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He entered active duty on 26 October 1989. In February 1991 he received a local bar to reenlistment, which he elected not to appeal. The local bar to reenlistment was initiated because there was “no demonstrated potential for future service” and because he was pending a court-martial for wrongful use of cocaine after testing positive on three separate occasions.
In March 1991 the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of three specifications of wrongful use of cocaine. His sentence included a bad conduct discharge.
On 12 November 1991 the applicant was discharged. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) reflects an RE Code of “4” and a SPD (Separation Program Designator) Code of JJD.
Subsequent to his separation, in August 2001, the ADRB concluded that although his discharge was proper, the characterization of his service was inequitable and in a unanimous vote, upgraded his bad conduct discharge to a general discharge. The ADRB also noted that a change in the reason for discharge was not authorized under Federal statue.
As a result of the ADRB decision, the applicant’s original DD Form 214 was voided and a new separation report was prepared. The new document reflected the upgrade in the applicant’s characterization of service, but his RE Code and SPD Code remained the same.
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 US Army Reserve. Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribed basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment. That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE Codes, including RA RE Codes.
RE-4 applies to individuals who were separated from their last period of service with a non-waivable disqualification. This includes anyone previously discharged with a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge or soldiers who were separated from their term of service with a locally imposed bar to reenlistment in effect.
Army Regulation 635-5-1 states that SPD Codes are three-character alphabetic combinations, which identify reasons for, and types of separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD Codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation. They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DOD and the military services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data. It notes that “JJD” is the appropriate SPD Code for individuals separated as a result of a court-martial.
A “cross-reference” chart, provided by officials from the separations branch at the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, confirms that “RE-4” is the appropriate RE Code for individuals who receive an SPD Code of JJD.
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 evidence confirms that the applicant’s RE Code was assigned based on the fact that he was separated from his last period of service with a non-waivable disqualification. Not only did his separation result from a court-martial, he also had a local bar to reenlistment in effect at the time. Notwithstanding the fact that the ADRB upgraded the character of his service, the applicant’s RE Code was appropriate considering the basis for his separation. The Board finds no basis to correct the existing code. The fact that he may be unable to enlist in the U.S. Army Reserve is not sufficient justification to change the applicant’s RE Code.
2. 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 that requirement.
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
__RVO__ ___JPI ___RKS _ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001066169 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020307 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 100.03 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040006338C070208
Records contain a memorandum, dated 30 July 1991, from United States Army Trial Defense Service, wherein the applicant's legal counsel raised the issue that he should be separated by a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB), rather then be administratively separated under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003782
It is not available in the applicant's service record). The applicant was discharged accordingly. His conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable laws and regulations and his discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct for which he was convicted.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088358C070403
The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185, paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined that the 3 year limit on filing to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should commence on the date of final action by the ADRB. The applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017771
When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 further states 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. The conviction and discharge were effected in accordance with applicable law and regulations and the discharge appropriately characterizes the misconduct...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060011010
The applicants request for correction of his separation code of JJD is a new issue that will be considered by the Board. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the SPD codes to be used for these stated reasons. Pertinent Army regulations provide that, prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005979
The applicant requests, in effect, a change in his Reentry Code (RE Code) from "4" to a "3" in order for him to enlist. It also shows the SPD code with a corresponding RE code and states that more than one RE code could apply. The evidence of record shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 3, for court-martial, and was issued a bad conduct discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000241C070205
The applicant's record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 6 September 1984. 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. The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing that applicants to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there, and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070008709
x The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. AR 635-200 provides the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table, dated October 1999, provides instructions for determining the RE code for Active Army Soldiers and Reserve Component Soldiers separated for cause.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063686C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Orders reassigning him to Fort Bragg were issued on 19 June 1990 and his reporting date was established as 31 December 1990. 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 | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014489
The applicant requests, in effect, that his reentry (RE) code of 3 and Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of KGF be changed to more appropriate codes. The evidence of record confirms a local bar to reenlistment was imposed on the applicant and he voluntarily requested discharge as a result. As a result, absent any evidence of error or injustice related to the applicant's assigned SPD and or RE codes there is an insufficient basis to support granting the requested relief.