| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Beverly A. Young | Analyst |
| Mr. John N. Slone | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Mark D. Manning | Member | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member |
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests that his Reentry Eligibility (RE) code be changed to a more favorable RE code.
2. The applicant states that he wants to change his RE code to reenlist and to fulfill his contract to the Army. He realizes now that he made a mistake in leaving the service but he has grown a lot in the last 4 years.
3. The applicant did not provide any documents in support of his application.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant is requesting correction of an error which occurred on 5 November 1999. The application submitted in this case is dated 15 April 2003.
2. Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of justice to do so. In this case, the ABCMR will conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.
3. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 September 1997.
4. He was absent without leave (AWOL) on 24 March 1999 from Fort Hood, Texas. He surrendered to military authorities and was returned to military authorities on 26 May 1999.
5. Charges were preferred against the applicant on 2 June 1999 for being AWOL from 24 March 1999 to 25 May 1999.
6. 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. In doing so, he admitted guilt to the offenses charged and acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and that he might be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Affairs if an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge were issued. The applicant did not submit a statement in his own behalf.
7. On 19 October 1999, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed an UOTHC discharge. The applicant was discharged on 5 November 1999. He completed 1 year, 11 months, and 22 days of active military service with 63 days of lost time. His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged with a separation code of “KFS” (For the Good of the Service – In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial) and issued a RE code of RE-4.
8. 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, 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. Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.
9. Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated reasons. The regulation shows that the separation program designator “KFS” as shown on the applicant’s DD Form 214 specifies the narrative reason for discharge as “For the Good of the Service – In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial” and that the authority for discharge under this separation program designator is “AR 635-200, Chapter 10.”
Additionally, SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table, dated October 1999, establishes RE Code 4 as the proper reentry code to assign to soldiers separated for this reason.
10. 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 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.
11. RE code 4 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service and the disqualification is not waivable.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows he was discharged with a separation code of “KFS” (For the Good of the Service – In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial) and was assigned a RE code of “4” in accordance with the governing regulation in effect at the time.
2. The RE code of "4" issued to the applicant is not waivable and does not allow him to continue Army service.
3. Records show the applicant should have discovered the error or injustice now under consideration on 5 November 1999; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 5 November 2002. However, the applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to file in this case.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
JNS_____ MDM_____ BJE_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003090316 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 20031118 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | YYYYMMDD |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR . . . . . |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | Mr. Chun |
| ISSUES 1. | 100.0300 |
| 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 | 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 | CY2005 | 20050002509C070206
On 24 May 2001, the separation authority approved the request for discharge in lieu of court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10. On 18 September 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) determined that the applicant's reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted to deny relief. The date of application to the ABCMR is within three years of the decision of the ADRB; therefore, the applicant has timely filed.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016502
The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant upon his discharge on 28 September 2000, shows he was separated under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200, with a characterization of service of UOTHC. On 20 April 2001, the applicant was notified the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), after carefully considering his entire military service record and the issues he presented, determined he had been properly and equitably discharged and it voted to deny his request for an upgrade...
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 | 20080000020
Director Analyst The following members, a quorum, were present: Chairperson Member Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicants complete military records are not available. Table 2-3 (SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table), Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect, at the time, established RE code 4 as the proper reentry code to assign to Soldiers separated under the provisions of Army Regulation...
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 | CY2003 | 2003088726C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. The Board considered the following evidence: His DD Form 214 shows he was discharged with a separation code of “KFS” (For the Good of the Service – In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial) and issued a RE code of RE-4.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002067555C070402
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 23 January 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. 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, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110012399
A DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet) shows the Commander, Personnel Control Facility, Fort Sill, OK, charged the applicant with one specification each of being AWOL from 4 August to 13 December 2009. On 17 December 2009, after consulting with counsel, he voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Separations), for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The regulation provides that prior to...