| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Ms. JoAnn H. Langston | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Member | ||
| Ms. Barbara J. Lutz | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his reentry (RE) code be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, he believes the record to be unjust, and would like to have the ability to one day return to the Army. He indicates that his discharge was upgraded to honorable, the narrative reason changed to Secretarial Authority, and his grade restored to staff sergeant as a result of an Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) action.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He served on active duty from 2 October 1989 through 29 August 2001, and the highest rank he attained was staff sergeant E-6 (SSG/E-6).
The applicant’s record confirms that a court-martial charge was preferred against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) for 35 days, between 1 May and
4 June 2001.
On 14 July 2001, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), and the effects of an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge. Subsequent to this counseling, he voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. In his request for discharge, the applicant admitted guilt to the offense, or a lesser included offense.
On 25 August 2001, the separation authority directed the applicant’s UOTHC discharge and his reduction to the lowest enlisted grade. The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant at this time confirmed that he completed a total of
11 years, 9 months, and 22 days of creditable active military service and accrued a total of 36 days of time lost due to AWOL. This document confirms he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, for the good of the service/in lieu of trial by court-martial, and that he was properly assigned an RE-4 code in Item 27 (Reentry Code).
On 5 April 2002, the ADRB found that the character of and reason for the applicant’s discharge were inequitable and voted to upgrade his characterization to fully honorable and to change the reason for his discharge to Secretarial Authority. The ADRB based their action on the applicant’s overall record of faithful and honorable service because it determined his misconduct was an aberration. However, the ADRB consciously elected not to change the applicant’s RE-4 code, as evidenced by the remark “This action does not entail a change to the RE code” contained in Part VIII – Directive/Certification,
Section A – Directive, of the ADRB’s decisional document.
The new DD Form 214 issued to the applicant subsequent to the ADRB action confirms that the authority for his discharge was changed to paragraph 5-3, Army Regulation 635-200, and the narrative reason for his discharge was changed to Secretarial Authority. In addition, Item 26 (Separation Code) contains the Separation Program Designator (SPD) code KFF and Item 27 (Reentry Code) contains the 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. It states, in pertinent part, that the SPD code of KFF is the appropriate code to assign to soldiers separating under the provisions of paragraph 5-3, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of Secretarial Authority. The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table contained in the regulation establishes that the RE code assigned to members assigned the SPD code of KFF will be determined by the Headquarters, Department of the Army (HQDA) directive authorizing the 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:
1. The Board notes the applicant’s request that his RE-4 code be upgrade in order to allow him the opportunity to return to the Army at some point. However, it finds this factor is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant the requested relief.
2. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant’s original discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations in effect at the time.
3. In addition, the Board notes that the ADRB voted to upgrade the characterization of the applicant’s discharge to honorable, and to change the reason for his discharge to Secretarial Authority, in the interest of equity. However, it consciously elected not to change his RE code. Therefore, since the applicant has failed to provide any further evidence of error or sufficiently mitigating factors, the Board concludes that RE-4 code assigned at separation and certified by the ADRB was and still is appropriate.
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
__JHL __ __ RVO _ __BJL __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002073300 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/08/20 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 2001/08/29 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Secretarial Authority |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 4 | 100.0300 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070003785C071029
Rowland C. Heflin | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The separation document he was issued confirms he was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial, and that he was assigned a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of KFS and an RE-4 code based on this authority and reason for separation. Notwithstanding the ADRB decision to upgrade the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005472
On 19 August 2005, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) granted the applicant relief as he was enrolled in the post Army Substance Abuse Program and the chain of command used a positive urinalysis during his enrollment period to initiate separation action which violated the applicants confidentiality. Army Regulation 635-200 states, in pertinent part, that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004285
On 28 June 2002, the applicant was discharged with a UOTHC discharge after completing 2 years, 7 months, and 13 days of active military service. On 29 October 2007, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) voted to upgrade the applicants discharge to honorable and to change the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority. Absent any evidence of error or injustice related to the ADRB RE code action taken in conjunction with the changes to the character of and authority and...
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010901C070208
On 29 October 2004, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered the applicant’s case and voted to upgrade the characterization of his service to fully honorable and to change the authority and reason for his separation to chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of Secretarial Authority, but specified this action did not entail a change to the applicant’s RE code. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003640
On 11 July 2007, the ADRB granted the applicant relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of his service to fully honorable and a change to the narrative reason for separation to Secretarial Authority. A discharge under other than honorable conditions was normally appropriate for a Soldier discharged under this chapter. The "JKK" SPD code is the correct code for Soldiers separating under chapter 14-12(c) of AR 635-200 by reason of misconduct and the "JFF" SPD code is the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003086135C070212
The DD Form 214 (Certificate Of Release Or Discharge From Active Duty) issued to the applicant on the date of his separation confirms that the authority for his discharge was chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200 and the reason for his separation was Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure. However, the ADRB failed to establish a corresponding RE code based on its change to the authority and reason for the applicant’s discharge as is required by regulation. In the absence of the RE code determination...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011133
IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 4 February 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090011133 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. However, the ADRB did not change his RE code, because he did not ask for the correction. The applicant was reissued a DD Form 214 that shows his authority for discharge was changed to Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-3 and the narrative reason for his discharge was changed to Secretarial Authority.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064806C070421
The separation authority was Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5, the separation code (SPD) was KGF (voluntary discharge due to Department of the Army- or locally-imposed bar to reenlistment), the narrative reason for separation was locally imposed bar to reenlistment, and the reenlistment (RE) code was RE 4. On 15 October 1993, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for a change in the narrative reason for separation. The applicant’s request for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120009034
The applicants record shows after completing 1 year, 5 months, and 26 days of prior active duty service, he enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 September 2009, and began the period of enlistment/service under review. The evidence of record confirms the separation directive issued by the ADRB determined there would be no change to the RE code. In this case, the ADRB elected not to change the RE-3 code originally assigned the applicant at discharge in the directive it issued authorizing the...