| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Rosa M. Chandler | Analyst |
| Ms. Kathleen A. Newman | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Lester Echols | Member | |
| Mr. John T. Meixell | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that Item 27 (Reenlistment (RE) Code) on his DD Form 214 (Certificate or Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be changed to reflect a more favorable code.
APPLICANT STATES: That he is making this request so that he may be considered for service in the United States Army Reserve (USAR). The applicant submits in support of his request a copy of his DD Form 214 and a copy of a DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
That in March 1980, he enlisted in the Delayed Entry Program (DEP). On 15 May 1980, he was separated from the DEP and he enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 63C (Track Vehicle Mechanic). During training, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, on 27 June 1980 for being drunk and disorderly. His punishment included the forfeiture of $100 pay per month for 1 month ($50 suspended for 60 days), and 10 days of extra duty and restriction.
On 26 August 1980, the applicant was granted a waiver to remain on active duty due to fraudulent entry after he failed to disclose his juvenile record at the time of enlistment.
On 4 November 1980, he was assigned to permanent duty at Fort Carson, Colorado. On 9 December 1980, the applicant was counseled for missing a mandatory formation. On 7 January 1981, NJP was imposed against the applicant for violating a lawful general regulation by unlawfully leaving the scene of an accident -- due to neglect, the military vehicle he was driving went into a ditch and hit a rock on 10 December 1980. His punishment included reduction from pay grade E-2 to pay grade E-1 (suspended until 11 March 1981) and 45 days of extra duty. A supplemental military police report showed the applicant was an unlicensed driver and the incident involved false swearing and reckless driving.
On 6 February 1981, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention (Expeditious Discharge Program), with a HD. He cited the basis for his recommendation was the applicant's poor attitude, lack of self-discipline and failure to demonstrate promotion potential. On 6 February 1981, the applicant consulted with legal counsel, acknowledged notification and voluntarily consented to the discharge. He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 10 February 1981, the approval authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of an honorable discharge (HD). The applicant was not to be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve. The applicant was informed to report to the US Army Separation Transfer Point, Fort Carson for separation processing on 19 February 1981.
On 19 February 1981, the applicant was separated with an HD under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention, EDP. He had completed a total of 9 months and 5 days of active military service and he had no recorded lost time. He was assigned a Separation Code of "JGH" and an RE Code of "RE-3."
On 22 April 1982, the applicant was issued a DD Form 215 to show that his correct RE Codes were RE-3 and RE-3C.
Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the elimination of enlisted personnel. Paragraph 5-31 provided, in pertinent part, for the separation of those individuals who failed to maintain acceptable standards for retention. This paragraph also provided for the separation of those individuals that demonstrated an inability to adapt socially or emotionally to the Army environment or those who responded initially but within a short period of time demonstrated that they were incapable of permanent adjustment. Under this regulation a GD or a HD was considered appropriate.
A separation code of "JGH" applies to RA soldiers separated as a result of the EDP and mandates an RE Code of RE-3/3C.
Pertinent Army Regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes based on their service records and/or the reason for discharge. Army Regulation 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlisting and processing into the RA and the eligibility of prior service applicants for enlistment. That chapter includes a list of Armed Forces RE codes and RA RE codes. Both RE-3 and RE-3C codes apply to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualifications are 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. 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.
2. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations then in effect with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.
3. The applicant was assigned a Separation Code of "JGH" and the appropriate RE codes of RE-3 and RE-3C because he was ineligible for reenlistment due to being separated under the EDP.
4. Codes of RE-3, and RE-3C apply to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable as determined by enlistment officials and the needs of the Army. The USAR establishes its own entrance criteria. The applicant should work with local recruiters on ascertaining his eligibility for continued military service in the USAR.
5. In view of the circumstances in this case, the assigned RE codes on the applicant's DD Form 214 were, and still are, appropriate. The applicant has submitted no evidence that these codes are in error or should be changed.
6. 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
__kan___ __le____ __jtm___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003085488 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20031002 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19810219 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 100.0300 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005207
The applicant requests, in effect, change of the separation authority, separation code, reason for separation, and reentry eligibility (RE) code listed on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty). The DD Form 214 shows he was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)), by reason of failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention (EDP). Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024898
Subsequent to this acknowledgement, the applicants immediate commander recommended the applicant be discharged with a General Discharge Certificate. Army Regulation 140-158 (Enlisted Personnel Classification, Promotion, and Reduction), in effect at the time, provided for promotion of Soldiers in the IRR. There is no evidence of record and he provides none to show he held a higher rank/grade between the date his suspended reduction was vacated and the date of his REFRAD.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002081469C070215
At the time, paragraph 5-31 provided that members who completed at least 6 months but less than 36 months of continuous active service on their first enlistment and who demonstrated that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel because of poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally or failed to demonstrate promotion potential could be discharged. Pertinent Army regulations provide that...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120004946
The applicant requests correction of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) as follows: * Item 11 (Primary Specialty Number, Title and Years and Months in Specialty) from "63BOO Locomotive Repairman 8 months" to "95B Military Police" * Item 27 (Reenlistment (RE) Code) from RE-3/3C to a more favorable code 2. LBK is used when the member has completed their required service but is ineligible for, barred from, or otherwise denied reenlistment. At the time of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110022056
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show his rank as sergeant (SGT)/E-5 and removal of his reentry eligibility (RE) code of RE-3. The evidence of record shows he was discharged from active duty on 1 May 1980 in the rank of PV2/E-2 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31h(2), by reason of EDP for failure to maintain acceptable standards for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003596
The applicant requests, in effect: * an upgrade of his general discharge under honorable conditions to an honorable discharge * amendment of his reentry eligibility (RE) code so he may be eligible to reenter military service 2. It states that SPD code JGH is the appropriate code to assign to Soldiers separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, by reason of "failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention." The evidence of record shows the applicant was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002080000C070215
Numerical designators "2" and "3" indicate that an individual has a medical condition or physical defect which requires certain restrictions in assignment within which the individual is physically capable of performing military duty. However, service medical records do not indicate any medical condition incurred while entitled to receive basic pay which was so severe as to render the applicant medically unfit for retention on active duty. The Board reviewed the applicant's record of...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050009148
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. Although the ADRB voted to upgrade the applicant’s discharge to honorable for equity reasons, it concluded that the authority and reason for the applicant’s separation was proper and equitable, and it voted not to change it. By regulation, the RE-3 code assigned the applicant was the proper code to assign...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1995 | 9509576C070209
Army Regulation 601-210, table 3-6, then in effect, listed the various RE codes and describes the reason(s) a soldier is assigned a particular code. The code RE-3C applied to persons who have completed more than 4 months service who did not meet the basic eligibility pay grade requirements of chapter 2, Army Regulation 601-280, or who had been denied reenlistment under the Qualitative Retention Process according to chapter 10, Army Regulation 601-280. The applicant has not presented and...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003088924C070403
There is no evidence of record, or evidence submitted by the applicant, that she was recommended or promoted to pay grade E-4. 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. The applicant has failed to show, through the evidence submitted with her application, that she was advanced to E-4 prior to her discharge on 22 September 1981 or that she was...