RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  13 OCTOBER 2005
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050001431 


	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

Ms. Deborah L. Brantley

Senior Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Ted Kanamine

Chairperson

Mr. Patrick McGann

Member

Ms. Carol Kornhoff

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 that his reentry (RE) code on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be changed from “4” to “3” in order that he can enlist in the Arizona Army National Guard. 

2.  The applicant states that he was an exceptional Soldier as indicated by his awards.  If given the chance, he will once again serve his country with honor and integrity. 

3.  The applicant provides the documents indicated herein. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Army for 4 years on 4 October 1990 and served on continuous active duty until his discharge in 1998.  The applicant was trained as an infantryman, served in Germany, in Bosnia-Herzegovina from 31 January 1996 to 1 November 1996, and in the former Republic of Yugoslavia from         14 March 1997 to 1 August 1997 as evidenced by two awards of the NATO Medal for those periods of service.    

2.  The applicant attained the rank of sergeant and was awarded the Army Commendation Medal, two awards of the Army Achievement Medal, two awards of the Army Good Conduct Medal, and the Driver and Mechanic Badge.  He received numerous certificates of appreciation and certificates of achievement.  He completed the primary leadership development course in December 1996, completed a command language program in April 1991, a security officer training course in July 2002, and a security officer firearms training and qualification course in October 2002.  

3.  The applicant’s Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) contains three Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reports (NCOERs).  The report for the period December 1996 through June 1997 shows that his rater considered him a fully capable NCO.  His senior rater stated that he should be promoted with his peers.  The report for the period July 1997 through October 1997 shows that this rater considered him a fully capable NCO.  His senior rater stated that he should be promoted when he gains more experience.  The report for the period November 1997 through May 1998 shows that his rater considered him a marginal NCO.  His senior rater stated that he should be promoted after all has peers have been promoted, and also stated that his performance was marginal. 

4.  On 21 May 1998 the applicant received nonjudicial punishment under     Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failure to go to his place of duty on two occasions, for absenting himself from his place of duty, for willfully disobeying a lawful order, for violating a lawful general regulation, and with intent to defraud, for wrongfully and unlawfully making a check against a closed account on two occasions.  The applicant was reduced to pay grade E-4, restricted for 45 days, and directed to perform extra duty for 45 days.

5.  On 2 June 1998 the applicant went AWOL (absent without leave).  He returned to duty on 11 June 1998.  

6.  On 21 July 1998 charges were preferred against the applicant for AWOL and for willfully disobeying a lawful command on three separate occasions.

7.  On 21 July 1998 the applicant consulted with consel, and voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He stated that he acknowledged that he understood the elements of the offenses charged and that he was guilty of the charges against him.  He stated that under no circumstances did he desire further rehabilitation, and that he had no desire to perform further military service. He stated that he understood the nature and consequences of the Under Other Than Honorable Discharge that he might receive.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

8.  The applicant’s commanding officer recommended approval on his request, because of the applicant’s current and past misconduct, and because of an off-post domestic violence incident against his wife.  He recommended that the applicant be issued an Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant’s battalion commander also recommended approval of his request, stating that the reason for his recommendation was abuse of his wife on a weekly basis.  The applicant’s brigade commander recommended approval and stated that the applicant had no value to the military, and that he failed to discipline himself.    

9.  On 28 July 1998 the separation authority approved the applicant’s request and directed that he be discharged under other than honorable conditions. 
The applicant was discharged at Fort Carson, Colorado on 3 August 1998, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  His separation code on his DD Form 214 is “KFS,” and his reentry code is “4.”

10.  On 10 March 2004 the applicant requested to the Army Discharge Review Board that his discharged be upgraded, stating that he had one isolated incident in 8 years of service with no other adverse incidents.  He stated that he had planned to make the Army his career; however, because of the lack of support from his ex-wife, he left Germany for the United States.   

11.  On 10 November 2004, the Army Discharge Review Board in a majority decision, granted the applicant’s request, and directed that his discharge be upgrade to Under Honorable Conditions (General).  In so doing, the board stated that it did not condone the applicant’s misconduct, but determined that the characterization of service was inequitable.  The board stated that the applicant’s misconduct was mitigated by service of sufficient merit to warrant an upgrade of his discharge.  The board determined that the reason for the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change it.  

12.  The applicant was reissued a DD Form 214 showing his characterization of service as Under Honorable Conditions (General), with the remark that the characterization was upgraded on 12 November 2004.  The separation authority, separation code, reentry code, and reason for separation remained the same.

13.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 prescribes the policy for standardization of separation program designator (SPD) codes.  SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations which identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty.  A separation code of “KFS” identifies an enlisted soldier discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.

14.   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.  It prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.  The regulation includes a list of armed forces reentry (RE) codes, including RA RE codes, and states that RE 4 applies to persons separated from last period of service with a nonwaivable disqualification for enlistment.  

15.  The Separation Program Designator Code (SPD)/Reentry (RE) Code Cross-Reference Table provides instructions for determining the RE code for active Army Soldiers separated for cause.  The table shows that a SPD code of “KFS”   calls for a RE code of “4.”   
  


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence shows that the applicant was an excellent Soldier during a good portion of his military service, as indicated by his awards, to include two awards of the Army Good Conduct Medal.

2.  The evidence also shows that the applicant was not the stellar Soldier that he makes himself out to be.  He failed to go to his place of duty on more than one occasion, willfully disobeyed orders, regulations, and commands, passed bad checks, and went AWOL – infractions that clearly question his value to the Army.       
3.  Be that as it may, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.  His request was approved.  He was discharged with a reentry code of “4” on his DD Form 214, a nonwaivable disqualification for enlistment.  

4.  The Army Discharge Review Board, in upgrading the characterization of his service to “Under Honorable Conditions” took into consideration the applicant’s overall record of service; however, did not deign to correct the reason for his discharge, determination it to be proper and reasonable.    

5.  By the same token, the applicant’s reentry code of “4” on his DD Form 214 is also proper, and in accordance with regulatory provisions.  The applicant has not provided any probative evidence or a convincing argument in support of his request to change his reentry code.  Thus, his request to change his reentry code from “4” to “3” is not warranted.     

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__TK____  __PM___  __CK ___  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.





_____ Ted Kanamine_______
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20050001431
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20051013
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
110.00
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.