| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. William Blakely | Analyst |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Kathleen A. Newman | Member | ||
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his reentry (RE) code of RE-4 be changed to a more favorable RE code.
APPLICANT STATES: The applicant has offered no argument or explanation with his application to support his request.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant entered the Army on 17 July 1979 and was honorably discharged on 17 January 1982. He immediately reenlisted on 18 January 1982, for a period of 6 years. His military occupational specialty (MOS) was 16D (Hawk Missile Crewman).
The applicant’s record confirms that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was specialist and that he earned the following awards during his active duty tenure: Army Service Ribbon; Good Conduct Medal (2nd Award); Overseas Service Ribbon; Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar; and Expert Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar.
On 18 December 1985, the applicant’s unit commander initiated a bar to reenlistment against him, citing his inability to demonstrate financial responsibility, numerous counseling for bad check writing, total disregard for adhering to command policy not to write bad checks, and the non-judicial punishment (NJP) for driving a vehicle while drunk. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the bar to reenlistment and acknowledged his understanding of the basis for the action. On 5 February 1986, the bar to reenlistment was approved by the appropriate authority.
On 14 July 1987, the applicant voluntarily requested separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 16-5b, based on his perception that he could not overcome the basis for the bar. He acknowledged that if his request for separation was approved, recoupment of unearned portions of any enlistment or reenlistment bonus was required, and that once separated he would not be permitted to reenlist at a later date.
The applicant’s separation request was approved by the separation authority, who directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5b, based on the locally imposed bar to reenlistment. On 29 July 1987, the applicant was honorably discharged accordingly after completing a total of 8 years and 23 days of active military service.
The DD Form 214 issued to and authenticated by the applicant on the date of his separation, confirms that the authority for his discharge was paragraph 5-16b, Army Regulation 635-200 and the reason for his separation was a locally imposed bar to reenlistment. This document also verifies that based on the authority and reason for his discharge, the applicant was assigned a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of KGF and a RE code of RE-4.
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 SPD code of KGF was the appropriate code for the applicant based on the guidance provided in this regulation for soldiers separating under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, paragraph 16-5b, by reason of a locally imposed bar to reenlistment. Additionally, Table 2-3 (SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table), Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), establishes RE-4 as the proper reentry code to assign to soldiers separated for this reason.
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 of record confirms that the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations and the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.
2. The Board finds that the RE-4 code assigned the applicant was appropriate, based on the authority and reason for his discharge and the basis for this
RE code assignment has not changed.
3. The records shows that the applicant voluntarily requested separation based on his perception that he could not overcome the locally imposed bar to reenlistment, and he acknowledged that he understood that if his request were approved, he would not be permitted to reenlist in the Army at a later date. Although, he may now feel that the RE-4 code assigned to him was inappropriate, this does not provide a sufficient basis for granting the requested relief.
4. 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.
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
__MHM__ __KAN__ __DPH__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002069751 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/05/14 |
| 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. | 100.0300 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065651C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 17 January 1986, the bar to reenlistment was approved by the appropriate authority and on 14 March 1986, the applicant voluntarily requested separation from the Army under the provisions of Army regulation 635-200, chapter 16-5b, based on his perception that he could not overcome the basis for the bar, and he acknowledged that if his request for separation was approved,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100025286
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). On 16 July 1987, the applicant requested that he be separated due to being under a locally imposed bar to reenlistment. Army Regulation 601-210, chapter 4, shows separation due to a locally imposed bar to reenlistment is waivable for enlistment.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050017468C070206
This regulation in effect at the time of the applicant’s separation stated that the SPD code of KGF was the appropriate code to assign to Soldiers separated under the provisions of paragraph 16-5b of Army Regulation 635- 200, by the reason of locally imposed bar to reenlistment. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was discharged at his own request, based on his perception that he could not overcome his locally imposed bar to reenlistment. In accordance with Army Regulation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011176
The applicant requests correction of his records to show he completed 2 full years of service. On 1 October 1987, the applicant submitted a DA Form 4187 (Personnel Action) requesting immediate separation from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 16-5b(1), by reason of inability to overcome a locally imposed bar to reenlistment. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100028065
The applicant was honorably separated from the ARNGUS and CAARNG on 29 January 1982 and transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) Control Group (Annual Training) to complete his Reserve obligation. On 7 May 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5b, with issuance of an Honorable Discharge Certificate. The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table also shows RE code 4 as an appropriate RE code to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080001500
Director Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Chairperson Member Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time confirms that he had completed 2 years, 1 month, and 23 days of active military service and held the pay grade of E-1. The regulation in effect at the time of the applicants separation stipulated that an SPD code of KGF and RE-4 code would be assigned to...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050002171C070206
Carmen Duncan | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. He was only barred to reenlistment. The regulation in effect at the time of the applicant’s separation stipulated that an SPD code of KGF and RE-4 code would be assigned to members separating under the provisions of paragraph 16-5b, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of locally imposed bar to reenlistment.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000829C070208
On 7 March 1985, the applicant’s unit commander prepared a Bar to Reenlistment Certificate (DA Form 4126-R) on her and requested she be barred from reenlistment based on her NJP record. The regulation in effect at the time of the applicant’s separation stipulated that an SPD code of KGF and RE-4 code would be assigned to members separating under the provisions of paragraph 16-5b, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of locally imposed bar to reenlistment. As a result, the Board further...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002704
The applicant requests change of his separation authority, code, and reason for separation. On 15 March 1989, the appropriate authority approved the Bar to Reenlistment action. The evidence of record confirms the applicant fully accepted his commander's recommendation for his locally imposed bar to reenlistment and that he voluntarily chose to request discharge based on his perception that he could not overcome the bar to reenlistment action.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010347
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states, in effect, that his separation and RE codes are in error because he was not told why he was being barred from reenlistment. The SPD code of KGF had a corresponding RE Code of 4. The regulation also specified that an RE Code of RE-3 would be applied when there was a locally imposed bar to reenlistment and the Soldier had less than 18 years active service.