| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. G. E. Vandenberg | Analyst |
| Ms. Kathleen A. Newman | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his separation program designator (SPD) and reentry (RE) code be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: That because he received a general discharge his RE code should be better than it is.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He entered active duty on 14 April 1999, completed training, and served as a combat engineer.
On 11 April 2000 he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for willful disobedience of a noncommissioned officer (NCO).
On 15 February 2001 a summary court found him guilty of failure to go to his appointed place of duty and of willful disobedience of a NCO. His sentence was for confinement for 14 days, forfeiture of $347.00 and reduction to pay grade E-1.
During an 11 July 2001 counseling session the applicant was notified, in writing, that his company commander intended to commence separation proceedings under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14. The following incidents were noted as justification for this action: three separate incidents of theft of ATM cards (automatic teller machine) from other service members; shoplifting; refusing to do training and report for field duty; and disrespect to senior NCOs and failure to obey lawful orders from his squad leader, platoon sergeant, and first sergeant.
On 13 September 2001 the applicant’s company commander initiated action to separate him for commission of a serious offense. The offenses cited were: shoplifting (larceny), failure to go to his appointed place of duty, and three incidents of willful disobedience of a lawful order from an NCO. The company commander recommended that the applicant receive a general discharge.
On 18 September 2001, after consulting with counsel and being advised of his rights and options, the applicant acknowledged that he was being processed for discharge because of his misconduct. He acknowledged he had been advised of and understood his rights under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), that he could receive an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge which would deprive him of many or all of his benefits as a veteran, that he could expect to experience substantial prejudice in civilian life if he received a general discharge, and that although he could apply for an upgrade there is no automatic upgrading or review of a less than honorable discharge. He waived his right to have military counsel but submitted a statement on his own behalf.
In his statement he indicated that he had gone into the III Corps Shoppette to buy some cigarettes. While he was reading a magazine one pack fell on the floor and without thinking about it he picked it up and put it in his pocket. He states that he was still at the magazine rack when arrested not that he was arrested attempting to leave the store as reported. He asked to be given a chance to continue in the service.
The discharge authority approved the discharge recommendation on 11 October 2001 directing that he receive a general discharge.
The applicant was discharged on 5 December 2001 for misconduct with an RE code of 3 and SPD of JKQ, misconduct, commission of a serious offense. His DD Form 214 shows he had 2 years, 6 months, and 3 days of creditable time with 49 days lost.
The Army Discharge Review Board reviewed and denied his case on 17 January 2003. At that time he was advised that an RE-3 was a waivable bar to reenlistment and if he desired to reenter the service he should contact a recruiter.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specifically paragraph 14-12c is for a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, absence without leave, or other actions that a punitive discharge is authorized under the UCMJ. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.
A serious offense is described as any offense punishable by confinement for more than six months or for which a punitive discharge is authorized.
The Manual for Courts-Martial, Table of Maximum Punishments, sets forth the maximum punishments for offenses chargeable under the UCMJ. A punitive discharge is authorized for offenses under Article 91, willfully disobeying a lawful order, and Article 121, larceny of property (shoplifting).
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, chapter 3 sets forth basic eligibility for prior service applicants for reenlistment and includes a list of armed forces RE codes.
RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waiverable. 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.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record and applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The applicant was properly separated and assigned the proper SPD and RE codes in accordance with regulations.
2. A change in the applicant’s SPD or RE code would require a change in the reason and authority for his separation. The Board has not found nor has the applicant provided any documentation or arguments warranting changing the reason for his discharge.
3. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to warrant a correction of either his SPD or RE code.
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.
| CASE ID | AR2003084026 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20031002 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | RE Code |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060006702
Facts and Circumstances: Evidence of record shows that on 30 March 1998, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, AR 635-200, by reason of misconductpattern of misconduct (you were apprehended for shoplifting at the main post exchange, and apprehended for shoplifting at the Airborne post exchange), with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. On 8 April 1998, the separation authority waived further...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001064261C070421
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether the application was filed within the time established by statute, and if not, whether it would be in the interest of justice to waive the failure to timely file. The applicant has not presented and the records do not contain sufficient justification to conclude that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001676
Various DD Forms show she * enlisted in the Regular Army, served from November 1987 to April 1992 (4 years, 5 months, and 7 days), attended Officer Candidate School, and was discharged as a sergeant to serve on active duty as an officer * served on active duty as a U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) officer from April 1992 to September 1995 (3 years, 5 months, and 14 days) and was released from active duty as a first lieutenant * served on active duty as a USAR officer from September 1997 to August...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001676
Various DD Forms show she * enlisted in the Regular Army, served from November 1987 to April 1992 (4 years, 5 months, and 7 days), attended Officer Candidate School, and was discharged as a sergeant to serve on active duty as an officer * served on active duty as a U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) officer from April 1992 to September 1995 (3 years, 5 months, and 14 days) and was released from active duty as a first lieutenant * served on active duty as a USAR officer from September 1997 to August...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002446
On 23 January 2006, the commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate her under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations). On 28 April 2006, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of paragraph 14-12c, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of misconduct (serious offense). There is also no evidence of record and the applicant did not provide any evidence that would...
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080008134
The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and submitted a statement in her own behalf. On 28 March 2007, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060745C070421
APPLICANT REQUESTS: Correction of his military records to show the reentry eligibility (RE) code 1, which would allow reenlistment. 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. Further, the applicant has not provided any substantiated evidence that shows he was discriminated against because of his nationality by anyone within his unit’s chain of...
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080009664
Applicant Name: ? On 6 June 2006, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: No Change Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE Case Number...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110016792
On 16 July 2008, the applicant's unit commander notified him he was initiating action which could result in his separation from the Army with a general discharge under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, for commission of serious offenses in the form of: rendering a false official statement, performing an indecent act, and possessing a controlled substance. There is no evidence the applicant...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110009937
He provides the following documents: a. a clinical assessment in which he indicated his mental health issues as PTSD, depression, anxiety, and medical issues of neck and back pain; b. a clinical summary which indicated he was diagnosed with poly-substance dependence, substance-induced PTSD at axis I; back pain and neck pain at axis II; and problems with primary supports, social environment, legal housing, and other at axis IV; c. an EAEDC Medical Report that shows he underwent a medical...