| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mrs. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast | Member | |
| Mr. John P. Infante | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his reentry (RE) code be changed from RE 4 to RE 3.
APPLICANT STATES: That he believes he was improperly given an RE code of 4. He has no other faults on his record.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 June 1999. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11H (Heavy Anti-Armor Weapons Infantryman).
On 19 September 2000, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant charging him with being absent without leave (AWOL) from on or about 4 August 2000 to on or about 15 September 2000.
On 22 September 2000, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The applicant was advised of the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that he might be deprived of many or all Army and Veterans Administration benefits. He did not submit a statement in his own behalf.
On 22 September 2000, the applicant was placed on excess leave pending action on his request for a discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.
In an endorsement forwarding the applicant's request, the company commander noted that the applicant had one record of non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Article 15 is not available.
On 30 May 2001, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request and directed he receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions.
On 30 June 2001, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge under other than honorable conditions. He had completed 1 year, 10 months, and 19 days of creditable active service and had 42 days of lost time. He was given an RE code of 4 and a separation code of KFS (voluntary discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-20, chapter 10).
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. The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual’s admission of guilt. 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 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.
RE code 4 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service and the disqualification is not waivable.
The Separation Program Designator Code (SPD)/Reentry (RE) Code Cross Reference Table dated March 2001 states that when the SPD is KFS then RE code 4 will be given.
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. In view of the fact that applicant was discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial, the assigned reentry code of RE 4 was properly awarded. The applicant was disqualified from reenlistment and the disqualification is not waivable.
3. 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
___ro___ ___ep___ __ji____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003089944 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20030612 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 100.03 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001066268C070421
The Board considered the following evidence: 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's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080015854
The applicant was given a separation code of "KFS" (voluntary discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial) and an RE code of "4." This regulation provides that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes, based on their service records or reason for discharge. The evidence shows the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010987
The applicant requests that his reentry (RE) code be changed from RE code 4 to RE code 3. The applicant was given a separation code of KFS (voluntary discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial) and an RE code of 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001054294C070420
The applicant states that the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded his discharge but was unable to act on his request to be restored to active duty. He was given a separation program designator (SPD) code of KFS (voluntary discharge under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10) and a reentry code of 4. The Board notes that the ADRB had upgraded the applicant’s discharge to general under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060017062C071029
When discharged, the DD Form 214 he was issued showed he was discharged under the provisions of AR 635-210, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court- martial. The separation code "KFS" and a reentry code of 4 were applied to his DD Form 214. The applicant's discharge was reviewed by the ADRB and after careful consideration of his application, his military records, and all other available evidence, determined he had been properly and equitably discharged.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080015292
The applicant's military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 June 1999. On 26 July 2000, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10 (Discharge in Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial), Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administration Separations) in lieu of trial by court-martial after charges were preferred against him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003090316C070212
On 3 June 1999, the applicant consulted with legal 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. On 19 October 1999, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed an UOTHC discharge. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it would...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003252
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicants DD Form 214 shows that, at age 17, on 22 March 2000, he was separated with a UOTHC discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200. By regulation, the SPD code of KFS and an RE code of 4 will be assigned to members who are discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062531C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations — Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. 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:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070002408C071029
On 15 December 2000, after consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10 for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court- martial. On 20 December 2001, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service with a discharge under other than honorable conditions. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to...