| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Joyce A. Wright | Analyst |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lawrence Foster | Member | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his Reentry (RE) Code of "4" be changed to RE "3" in order to enlist in the US Army Reserve (USAR).
APPLICANT STATES: That his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge) should be reviewed and that there should be a way to change his RE Code to a more favorable code in order to enlist in the USAR. In support of his application, he submits a copy of his DD Form 214 and a copy of his DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show he enlisted on 3 November 1993, as a fighting vehicle infantryman, in the pay grade of E-3. He was promoted to specialist (SPC/E-4) effective 1 May 1995.
On 26 August 1996, the applicant participated in a command directed urinalysis in which he provided a urine sample that subsequently tested positive for cocaine.
Between November 1996 and February 1997, he received numerous counseling statements for failure to repair, missing alert and formation, breaking restriction, and for failure to obtain a telephone while residing off post.
On 6 December 1996, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for wrongful use of cocaine, a controlled substance. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2, a forfeiture of pay (suspended), and 45 days restriction and extra duty.
On 30 December 1996, the applicant's commander requested that an elimination packet be prepared on the applicant based on his wrongful use of cocaine and numerous counseling statements.
The applicant's records contain a recommendation for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct and commission of serious offense. The applicant's packet was signed by the commander and reviewed by legal counsel but was never was finalized.
The applicant underwent a separation medical examination on 21 January 1997, and was found qualified for separation. He underwent a mental evaluation on 10 February 1997, which determined that he could distinguish right from wrong and that he possessed sufficient mental capacity to participate in administrative or judicial proceedings.
On 26 February 1997, the applicant departed AWOL. He was apprehended by civilian authorities on 20 September 2000 and was returned to military control on 21 September 2000.
Charges were preferred against the applicant on 27 September 2000, for being AWOL from 26 February 1997 to 20 September 2000 (1,302) days.
On 27 September 2000, he consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offense and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration (VA) if an under other than honorable conditions discharge were issued. He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 12 February 2002, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he furnished an Under Other Than Conditions discharge. The applicant was discharged on 26 February 2002. His DD Form 214 states that he had a total of 7 years, 10 months, and 17 days of creditable service and had 1,302 days of lost time due to AWOL. He was issued an RE Code of "4."
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for separation of enlisted
personnel. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a
member who has committed an offense, or offenses, for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge, may at any time after the charges
have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service
in lieu of trial by court-martial. A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
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. That chapter includes a list of
Armed Forces RE codes, including RA RE codes.
RE–4 applies to persons not qualified for continued service by virtue of being separated from the service with non-waivable disqualifications such as persons discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.
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 that the RE-4 is consistent with the basis for his separation and in this case finds no basis to correct the existing code.
2. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for that separation were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.
3. The applicant has failed to show, through the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record, that his separation which resulted in his receiving an RE Code of RE "4" was in error or unjust.
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
___wm___ ___lf___ __le____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002080932 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030626 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 20020226 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR .635-200, chap 10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 4 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070009334C080213
On 3 September 2000, the applicants commander initiated separation proceedings under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c for serious misconduct. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) states that SPD JKK is used for an involuntary discharge when the reason for discharge is Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c(2). The evidence of record shows that he was in fact recommended for discharge for both drug use and larceny.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022651
On 5 March 2006, the applicant petitioned the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (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. Army Regulation 635-200 further states that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes based on their...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002083070C070215
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, correction of appropriate military records to show a reentry (RE) code which would allow reenlistment. Paragraph 2-4h(18)(c) states that, for enlisted soldiers with more than one enlistment period during the time covered by this DD Form 214, “IMMEDIATE REENLISTMENTS THIS PERIOD” (specify dates) will be entered. NOTE : The Board requests that the Army Review Boards Agency Support Division – St. Louis amend the applicant’s DD Form 214 by adding his prior...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080002929
The applicant continues that he was discharged from the Army because of failing the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP). The Adjutant General of Virginia, after reviewing the separation action, directed that the applicant be discharged from the VAARNG and Reserve of the Army as a result of his misconduct associated with a positive urinalysis test indicating the presence of cocaine. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070012311
On 24 January 2006, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, for using cocaine between on or about 25 July 2005 and on or about 26 August 2005. On 7 April 2006, the separation authority approved the applicants discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of patterns of misconduct-commission of a serious offense and directed the applicant be furnished an Under Other than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. ...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010893C070208
Linda M. Baker d | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. 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. According to Army Regulations, the RE-4 assigned to the applicant at the time of his discharge is correct.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080001811
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 1 July 1991, the applicants commander recommended separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, for the commission of a serious offense. The RE Code 3, establishing his ineligibility for enlistment/reenlistment without a waiver, and the narrative reason for separation were correctly entered on his separation document in accordance with governing regulations in effect at the time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014292
Item 26 (Separation Code) of his DD Form 214 shows "KFS and Item 27 shows "RE-4." An RE code of "4" was entered to his DD Form 214. The evidence of record also shows the applicant completed an honorable period of service from 10 July 1996 to 25 January 1999.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110014320
On 18 November 2001, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. 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. Table 3-1 included a list of the RA RE codes: a. RE-1 applies to Soldiers completing...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004142C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests that his Reentry (RE) code be changed from RE-4 to RE-3 to permit him to return to military service. 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.