| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Deyon D. Battle | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his reentry eligibility (RE) code be changed from RE-4 to RE-3.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that the RE code that he received was too harsh considering the nature of his offenses. In support of his appeal he submits a letter from a senator’s office dated 9 November 2001, addressed to a Department of the Army Recruiter, in Little Rock, Arkansas, recommending that his RE code be changed. He also submits a letter from the American Red Cross dated 25 October 2001, attesting to his good character and work ethics.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 14 August 1993, he enlisted in the Army for 4 years in the pay grade of E-1 and he successfully completed his training as a infantryman.
He was promoted to the pay grade of E-2 on 4 February 1994 and to the pay grade of E-3 on 4 August 1994.
The applicant was convicted by a general court-martial on 8 August 1995, of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 4 April until 9 April 1995 and of 23 specifications of larceny, which took place between 15 December 1994 and 8 April 1995. He was sentenced to a bad conduct discharge, confinement for 22 months, a reduction to the pay grade of E-1 and a forfeiture of all pay and allowances. The convening authority limited his term of confinement to 20 months, pursuant to a pretrial agreement.
On 23 January 1996, the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the findings of guilty and the sentence.
Accordingly, on 26 August 1996 the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 3, pursuant to a general
court-martial conviction. He had completed 2 years and 4 months of total active service and he was furnished a bad conduct discharge. He was also assigned an RE code of RE-4.
On 4 February 2002, the applicant submitted an Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal (DD Form 293) to the Army Discharge Review Board requesting that his discharge be upgraded. This Board has accepted his DD Form 293 in lieu of DD Form 149.
On 7 February 2002, this Board denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.
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 prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment. The regulation provides that persons last separated from the service with a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge constitutes an unwaivable disqualification. That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes, including RA RE codes. RE-4 applies to persons separated from their last period of service with a non-waivable disqualification.
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 applicant was separated and assigned a reentry code in accordance with regulations then in effect.
2. The Board has noted the documentation submitted by the applicant in support of his appeal; however, neither of the two letters is sufficiently mitigating to warrant the relief request.
3. He was convicted by a general court-martial of being AWOL and of 23 specifications of larceny. He was appropriately furnished a bad conduct discharge and he was assigned an RE code of RE-4, a non-waivable disqualification. Considering his overall record of service it does not appear that the RE code that he was furnished is too severe.
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
___be___ __kh____ ___rvo __ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002073830 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/10/24 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 1021 | 100.0000 |
| 2. 4 | 100.0300 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | CY2008 | 20080007924
The applicant requests, in effect, that he be reinstated into the Army, his pay grade of E-4 be restored and that his RE (Reentry) Code be changed from a "4" to a "1" for the purposes of reenlistment only. Article 58a of the Uniform Code of Military Justice specifies that unless otherwise provided in regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary concerned, a court-martial sentence of an enlisted member in pay grade above E-1, as approved by the convening authority, that includes a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014482
BOARD DATE: February 4, 2010 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20090014482 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. The regulation states the reason for discharge based on separation code "JJD" is "Court-Martial, Other" and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 3. Although the applicant was 17 years of age when he enlisted, he served almost 2 years of service prior to his general court-martial conviction.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064593C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The applicant appealed and on 19 February 1998 the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces granted his petition for review. The Board notes that the applicant’s request for early retirement had been approved by 9 September 1994.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014916
The applicant requests that his Bad Conduct Discharge be upgraded to a general discharge under honorable conditions and that his reentry eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow reenlistment. In accordance with Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records is not empowered to change a court-martial conviction, rather it is only empowered to change the severity of the sentence imposed in the court-martial...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110013571
On 30 August 2000, the Army Discharge Review board (ADRB) considered the applicant's request to change the characterization of his service. Army Regulation 601-210 prescribes eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the Army Reserve. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) provides the specific authorities and reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005474
The applicant requests that his bad conduct discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge and his Reentry (RE) Code upgraded to RE-1. Through his exemplary service, these authors state that the applicant would be an honorable asset to the U.S. Army and, in effect, recommend that his characterization of service be upgraded so he can reenter the Army. As there is insufficient evidence to upgrade the applicant's discharge, there is no evidence to support upgrading the applicant's RE code.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002074997C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. In accordance with Title 10, United States Code, section 1552, the authority under which this Board acts, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records is not empowered to set aside a conviction. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002079351C070215
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 16 March 1995, the applicant was separated for unsatisfactory performance under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 with an HD. Certain persons who have received nonjudicial punishment are so disqualified, as are persons with bars to reenlistment, and those discharged under the provisions of chapters 9, 10, 13, and 14 of Army Regulation 635-200.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050003470C070206
On 12 April 1995, the applicant was discharged from the Army pursuant to the sentence of the special court-martial and was issued a BCD. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned reentry 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...