| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.. | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Stanley Kelley . | Member | |
| Ms. Gail J. Wire | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he wants to reenter the Army to support our country before he is too old. He states that he is currently 35 years old and in good mental health. He asks that he be given a chance to honor our country.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 21 September 1987, he enlisted in the Regular Army for 4 years. The record also confirms that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private/E-2 (PV2), and that during his active duty tenure he earned no individual military awards or decorations. His record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.
Court-Martial charges were preferred against the applicant on 16 June 1988. He consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of an UOTHC discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him. Subsequent to this counseling, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In his request for discharge, the applicant acknowledged his understanding that he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.
The appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, and directed that he receive an UOTHC discharge. On
1 July 1988, the applicant was discharged accordingly.
The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on the date of his separation confirms that he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation
635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial. This document also confirms that at the time of his discharge the applicant had completed 9 months and 11 days of creditable active military service. This document also confirms that the applicant was assigned a reentry (RE) code of RE-3.
On 8 October 1991, the Army Discharge Review Board found the applicant’s discharge was both proper and equitable, and it denied his request for an upgrade.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the 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 UOTHC 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-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 the applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded in order to allow him to reenter the Army and serve his country. However, while this is an admirable goal, the Board does not find it is a sufficiently mitigating factor that warrants the requested relief.
2. The evidence of record shows the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) with a punitive discharge. The Board notes that, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily, and in writing, requested separation from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.
3. The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process and that the character of his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service. Therefore, the Board concludes that the requested relief is not warranted.
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. The applicant is advised that while he received an RE code that indicates he was disqualified from further service, the RE-3 code he was assigned indicates that the disqualification may be waived for reenlistment purposes. This does not guarantee that he would be allowed to reenlist; however, he should contact a local recruiter to determine if he is eligible to reenlist under the current enlistment criteria. Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of RE codes.
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
__GW___ __SK___ __RO___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003085543 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/05/22 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UOTHC |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1988/07/01 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 C10 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | In lieu of court-martial |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 189 | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090006912
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 22 May 2007, the applicant was discharged accordingly. 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 | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080014013
On 21 December 1988, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10 (for the good of the service In lieu of court-martial). 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. However, by regulation, the RE-4 code assigned to the applicant was the proper code to assign members separating under the provisions of...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050013538
On 21 January 1988, while serving at Fort Polk, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failing to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time. In his request for discharge, the applicant also indicated that he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge(s) against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009805
On 24 January 2008, the separation authority approved the applicants request for discharge and directed that he receive a UOTHC discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. 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. By regulation, the SPD code of KFS and the RE code of RE-4 are the proper codes to assign members...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060005915C070205
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. He states he submitted a request to the chaplain for an honorable discharge and his request was granted. The applicant's DD Form 214 shows the applicant was discharged from active duty with a separation code of "KFS" (For the Good of the Service – In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial) and was assigned RE codes of RE-3, RE- 3B, and RE-3C in accordance with the governing regulation in effect at the time.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000241C070205
The applicant's record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 6 September 1984. 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 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090014640
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant upon his discharge also confirms he was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), in lieu of trial by court-martial, and that based on the authority and reason for his discharge, he was assigned a separation program designator (SPD) code of KFS in item 26 and an RE code of 4 in item 27 (Reentry Code). Pertinent Army...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070003785C071029
Rowland C. Heflin | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The separation document he was issued confirms he was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial, and that he was assigned a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of KFS and an RE-4 code based on this authority and reason for separation. Notwithstanding the ADRB decision to upgrade the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070013629
In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge against him, or to a lesser included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge. The SPD code of KFS was the appropriate code for the applicant based upon the guidance provided in Army Regulation 635-5-1 for Soldiers separating under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060017370
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 12 June 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060017370 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. On 18 May 2006, the approving authority approved the applicant's request and directed the applicant be discharged in lieu of trail by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel...