Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040005903C070208
Original file (20040005903C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied



                            RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            10 May 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20040005903


      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.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Jennifer L. Prater            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Bernard P. Ingold             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Antonio Uribe                 |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his reentry (RE) code be
changed to allow him to reenter military service.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that through no fault of his own he
was discharged.  He claims that during his absence from the unit, he
attempted to contact a recruiter concerning an Inter-State Transfer.

3.  The applicant provides an application to the Army Discharge Review
Board (ADRB) in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s record shows that he enlisted in the Washington Army
National Guard (WAARNG) on 19 December 1996.  He was trained in, awarded
and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 63W (Wheel Vehicle
Repairer) and the highest rank he attained was specialist/E-4 (SPC/E-4).

2.  On 12 September 2000, the applicant received an under other than
honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge from the WAARNG under the provisions
of paragraph 1-26k, Appendix A (Enlisted Separations), All States
Memorandum, dated 20 October 1998, by reason of unsatisfactory participant.


3.  The applicant’s record does not contain a separation packet containing
the specific facts and circumstances surrounding his separation processing.
 There is a separation document (NGB Form 22) on file that confirms the
authority and reason for the applicant’s discharge.  This document confirms
that the applicant was assigned an RE code of RE-4 based on the authority
and reason for his discharge.

4.  On 9 May 2003, the ADRB voted to upgrade the applicant’s discharge to a
general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) and to change the
authority and reason for his discharge from the Reserve of the Army to
paragraph 4-4, Army Regulation 135-178, by reason of Secretarial Authority.



5.  The ADRB further recommended that The Adjutant General (TAG) of the
States of Washington upgrade the applicant’s discharge from the WAARNG to a
GD and change the authority and reason for his discharge to paragraph 27y,
National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200, by reason of “as a result of
discharge from the Reserve of the Army”.  The ADRB further recommended that
his WAARNG record be corrected to show he received an RE-3 code, as
specified in paragraph 6-27y, NGR 600-200, unless the WAARNG TAG felt an RE-
1 code assignment would be more appropriate.

6.  In a 20 July 2004 Memorandum, the Chief, Personnel Division, National
Guard Bureau (NGB), indicated that the actions recommended by the ADRB had
been completed and a new NGB Form 22 had been published accordingly.  The
corrected NGB Form 22 shows that the authority for the applicant’s
discharge is paragraph 8-27y, NGR 600-200 and that the narrative reason for
discharge is “as a result of discharge from the Reserve of the Army”.  This
separation document also shows that based on the authority and reason for
the applicant’s discharge, he was assigned an RE-Code of RE-3.

7.  NGR 600-200 establishes standards, policies, and procedures for the
management of ARNG enlisted Soldiers.  Chapter 8 provides the policy for
separation/discharge from the ARNG.  Paragraph 8-27y provides the authority
to discharge members from the ARNG based on their discharge from the
Reserve of the Army.  The regulation authorizes the assignment of RE-3 for
members discharged from the ARNG for this reason.

8.  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 who are disqualified
for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s request to upgrade his RE code because his discharge
was through no fault of his own was carefully considered.  However, there
is insufficient evidence to support relief beyond that granted as a result
of the ADRB action on this case.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the ADRB action resulted in an upgrade
of the applicant’s discharge to a GD and a change in the narrative reason
for discharge from the Reserve of the Army to Secretarial Authority.

3.  The record also confirms that based on the recommendation of the ADRB,
the WAARNG upgraded the applicant’s discharge to a GD and changed the
authority and reason for his discharge to paragraph 8-27y, NGR 600-200, by
reason of “as a result of discharge from the Reserve of the Army”.
Further, the WAARNG changed the applicant’s RE code from RE-4 to RE-3.

4.  The evidence of record supports the changes recommended by the ADRB and
implemented by the WAARNG.  However, absent any evidence of error or
injustice that would warrant further relief, the RE-3 code now assigned the
applicant remains valid.

5.  The applicant is advised that although no further change to his RE code
is recommended, this does not mean he is being denied reenlistment.  While
RE-3 does apply to persons who are not considered fully qualified for
reentry or continuous service; there are provisions that provide for a
waiver of the disqualification.  If he desires to reenlist, he should
contact a local recruiter to determine his eligibility.  Those individuals
can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the
time, and are required to process
RE code waivers.
BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___BPI__  __AU ___  ___JLP__  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.





            ____Jennifer L. Prater_____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040005903                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/05/10                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |2000/09/12                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |NGR 600-200                             |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Reserve of the Army Discharge           |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|                      2.|100.0300                                |
|4                       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080012664

    Original file (AR20080012664.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Request: Upgrade Reason Change RE Code Change Issues: See DD Form 293 and attached documents submitted by the Applicant. Chapter 8 of NGR 600-200, paragraph 8-26y covers, in pertinent part, reasons for discharge and separation of enlisted personnel from the State Army National Guard and as a Reserve of the Army, who are medically unfit for retention per AR 40-501. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130005017

    Original file (AR20130005017.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states he served in the Army and Army National Guard and was discharged honorably. Discharge Received: General, Under Honorable Conditions c. Date of Discharge: 1 August 2008 d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: Misconduct (Abuse of Illegal Drugs), NGR 600-200, RE-3 e. Unit of assignment: HHC, 1st Bn, 178th Inf, Illinois Army National Guard, Chicago, IL f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 15 September 2003, NIF g. Current Enlistment Service: 4 years, 10 months, 17 days h. Total...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090021378

    Original file (20090021378.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant's military records show he served in the Regular Army from 10 September 1975 to 9 September 1978 and in the U.S. Army Reserve from 10 September 1978 to 25 June 1979. He provided a copy of his letter to the AGDRB, dated 19 November 2009, wherein he stated although he had worn the E-9 rank and served as a SGM for over 3 years, he had not completed 2 years of service after completing the Sergeants Major Academy, so he was retired as an E-8. As a result, the Board recommends that...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090002607

    Original file (AR20090002607.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Applicant Name: ????? An uncharacterized discharge denotes only that the individual had less than 180 days on active duty. The analyst determined that no such unusual circumstances were present in the applicant’s record and his service did not warrant an honorable characterization of service.

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2006 | AR20060013468

    Original file (AR20060013468.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Army Regulation 635-40 provides that a Soldier’s service will be uncharacterized when his separation is initiated while the Soldier is in entry-level status. Therefore, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable. Certification Signature and Date Approval Authority: MARK E. COLLINS Colonel, U.S. Army President, Army Discharge Review Board Official: CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON DATE: 9 November 2007 Lieutenant Colonel,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060000796C070205

    Original file (20060000796C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    With his discharge from the Army Reserve he no longer qualified for continuation in the INARNG and was discharged. Service under entry-level separation provisions is uncharacterized and requires an RE-3 code. Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 13 December 2002; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 12 December 2005.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004101066C070208

    Original file (2004101066C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    He also asks for removal of all documents or any references to fraudulent enlistment or fraudulent documents from all military records, including those held by the CAARNG and the Defense Security Service; and other relief the Board deems appropriate. These include the following: Exhibit 1 – 6 October 1997 CAARNG Orders 279-531 discharging the applicant from the ARNG and as a Reserve of the Army with a general discharge under the provisions of National Guard Regulation 600-200, paragraph...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002147

    Original file (20090002147.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant’s records further show he was honorably released from active duty on 7 January 1976 for completion of required service. With respect to the applicant’s discharge, the evidence of record shows that the applicant was absent from several UTA/MUTA. With respect to the promotion issue, there is no evidence in the applicant's record and the applicant did not provide any evidence that he was promoted to SGT/E-5 or SP6.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011051

    Original file (20110011051.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's NGB Form 0122E shows he was granted Federal Recognition in the grade of 2LT on 16 October 2009. Officers who are federally recognized in a particular grade and branch shall be tendered an appointment in the same grade as Reserve commissioned officers of the Army with assignment to the Army National Guard of the United States if they have not already accepted such appointment. NGR 600-100, paragraph 10-15b states that temporary Federal Recognition may be granted by a Federal...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050007670

    Original file (20050007670.doc) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant requests, in effect, restoration of his rank of specialist (SPC); that his Army National Guard (ARNG) Separation Document (NGB Form 22) be corrected to include the Army Good Conduct Medal and Army Achievement Medal and to reflect his correct military education. The evidence of record shows that the separation document issued to the applicant by the FLARNG properly reflects his rank as SPC, and it was also corrected to reflect the authority and reason for separation recommended...