| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Joyce A. Hall | Analyst |
| Mr. Samuel A. Crumpler | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Roger W. Able | Member | |
| Mr. Hubert O. Fry | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his discharge under other than honorable conditions be upgraded to an honorable discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that there was no reasonable reason for his discharge. His separation document shows a reenlistment code (RE-code) of RE-3B. He contends that RE-3B indicates pregnancy or parenthood. In support of his application, the applicant submits a copy of his court-martial conviction, copies of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record), and a list of RE-codes and their meanings.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 5 January 1972. He served as a Light Weapons Infantryman and was honorably discharged on 29 January
1974 for the purpose of immediate reenlistment on 30 January 1974.
On 16 November 1977 the applicant was convicted by a summary court-martial of being absent without leave (AWOL) from 30 September to 28 October 1977. He was sentenced to confinement at hard labor for 30 days and a forfeiture of
$260.00 pay for 1 month.
On 31 December 1977 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for being disrespectful in language to a superior non commissioned officer. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of 7 days base pay and 14 days restriction and extra duty.
The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's discharge are not present in the available records. However, his DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) indicates that on 11 January 1978 he was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct (shirking). He had served 3 years, 9 months and 21 days of total active service during this enlistment and he had 51 days of lost time due to AWOL and confinement.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 13 contains the policy and outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unfitness, and provides, in pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a satisfactory soldier.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provided that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. A characterization of under
honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the soldier's
separation specifically allows such characterization.
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. The regulation in effect at the time of the applicant's separation shows that RE- 3B applied to service members who had lost time during their last enlistment.
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 considered the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge from under other than honorable conditions.
2. The Board reviewed the available records pertaining to the applicant's service, which included one summary court-martial conviction for 28 days of being absent without leave, 51 days of lost time, and one nonjudicial punishment for being disrespectful in language to a superior non commissioned officer.
3. Based on the applicant's record of indiscipline, the Board determined that his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. Therefore, the applicant did not meet the criteria for an honorable discharge. The Board also determined the applicant's service was not satisfactory; therefore, he did not meet the criteria for a general discharge.
4. The Board noted the applicant's contention that the RE-code 3B is incorrect because it indicates pregnancy or parenthood.
5. The Board also noted the list of reenlistment codes furnished by the applicant. However, these are RE-codes used by the Department of the Navy for Navy personnel and are not applicable to Army personnel.
6. The Army regulation governing RE codes shows that RE-3B pertains to Army personnel with lost time. Therefore, the applicant's RE-code of 3B is correct as currently constituted based on his 51 days of lost time.
7. 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.
8. 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
__SAC__ ____RWA __HOF___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002075701 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/11/26 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1978/01/11 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, Chapter 13 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | A60.00 |
| ISSUES 1. | |
| 2. | 144.6000 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 07126-09
Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of the enclosures, naval records, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. e. In August 1988 Petitioner was administratively processed for separation by reason of pregnancy/childbirth due to her inability to comply with the NFC policy program. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by changing ~ the RE-4 reenlistment code, assigned on 5 August 1988, to RE-3B.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002065462C070402
The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion, if any) APPLICANT REQUESTS: That item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected to show the entry "Hardship" instead of "Pregnancy," and that she receive her education benefits. On 13 January 1992, the applicant submitted a formal personnel...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 10755-09
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that her reenlistment code be changed. Nevertheless, she was administratively processed for separation by reason of parenthood due to her inability to comply with the NFC program. On 23 February 2004 the discharge authority, Navy Personnel Command (NPC), directed a reenlistment code of RE-3B, or a RE-4, if warranted by the service record.
NAVY | BCNR | CY2010 | 13656-10
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with Ghd Board requesting that her RE-4 reenlistment code be changed. Since an RE-3B reenlistment code is authorized by regulatory guidance for a Sailor who is separated for this reason, the Board concludes that an RE-3B reenlistment code is more appropriate than the RE-4 reenlistment code now of record. That Petitioner's naval record be corrected by changing the RE-4...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130016929
The evidence of record shows on 8 August 2005, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 5, paragraph 5-8, by reason of parenthood, for failure to maintain an adequate family care plan within the allotted time, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were not followed in this case. Therefore and as approved by the separation...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2009 | 00327-09
Pursuant to the provisions of reference {a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting that her RE-4 reenlistment code be changed. Since an RE-3B reenlistment code is authorized by regulatory _ guidance for a Sailor who is separated by reason of .parenthood, the Board concludes that the interest of justice would better be better served by changing Petitioner’s RE-4 reenlistment code to Re-3B rather than the RE-4 now of record. That...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2013 | NR9501 13
Pursuant to the provisions of reference (a), Petitioner, a former enlisted member of the United States Navy, filed enclosure (1) with this Board requesting, in effect, that the MDF (pregnancy or childbirth} separation code and RE-4 (not recommended for retention) reentry code issued on 2 May 1994, be upgraded. The Board, consisting of Mr. 4salman, Mr. Rothlein, and Ms. Henkel, reviewed Petitioner's allegations of error and injustice on 23 July 2014 and, pursuant to its regulations,...
NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 07171-00
The Board also notes that even though Petitioner's trait averages differ on his enlisted performance record and his performance evaluation, both marks exceed the required average of 2.0 which is needed for a The Board further fully honorable characterization of service. notes Petitioner's only performance evaluation of record in which he was recommended for retention and promotion and believes that the sole reason for separation was due to him being nondeployable because he could not find...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130002941
The applicant requests to change the narrative reason for her separation from "Pregnancy Discharge - Overseas Separation" to "Hardship." The complete facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's separation were not available to the Board; however, the applicant's record contains Orders 118-6, issued by the 369th Personnel Service Company, dated 8 June 1988, which show she received an approved overseas separation and an approved chapter 8 (Separation of Enlisted Women for Pregnancy)...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140019360
The applicant requests the following: * an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge * removal of his court-martial conviction * a personal appearance before the Board 2. On 16 May 1970, the applicant's unit commander advised the applicant he was initiating action to discharge the applicant under the provisions of AR 635-212, by reason of unsuitability, with an undesirable or general discharge. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of...