RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 8 November 2005
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050004221
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. Yvonne Foskey | |Analyst |
The following members, a quorum, were present:
| |Mr. Stanley Kelley | |Chairperson |
| |Ms. Diane J. Armstrong | |Member |
| |Mr. Delia R. Trimble | |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, correction of the reentry (RE) code
entered in Item 26 (Reenlistment Eligibility) of her 14 June 2003
separation document (NGB Form 22).
2. The applicant states, in effect, that after her unit was activated for
deployment, she requested to be honorably discharged based on having to
care for her 7 year old daughter. She states she has recently attempted to
reenlist and was told by the recruiter she would not be able to re-enlist
based on her
RE-4 code. She further states that it was her belief that her discharge
would have no negative impact on her future ability to serve. She also
states that she did not receive proper counseling on the explanation of
terms entered on his separation document, and as a result, she did not
understand the impact of the RE-4 code she received.
3. The applicant provides the following documents in support of her
application: Self-Authored Letter; Third Party Letter; Separation Document
(NGB Form 22); Fax Cover Sheet, dated 3 September 2005; United States Army
Reserve (USAR) Personnel Command Orders Number D-05-028314, dated 23 May
2000; Personnel Action (DA Form 4187), dated 14 June 2003; and Bar to
Reenlistment, Immediate Reenlistment or Extension Certificate (NGB Form 602-
R), dated
14 June 2003.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant’s record shows she enlisted in the Iowa Army National
Guard (IAARNG) on 21 May 1992. She was trained in, awarded and served in
military occupational specialty (MOS) 92G (Food Service Specialist), and
the highest rank she attained was specialist/E-4 (SPC/E-4).
2. On 15 May 2002, the applicant was placed on active duty for the purpose
of deployment.
3. On 14 June 2003, the applicant's commander recommended the applicant be
barred from reenlistment for non-completion of her Family Care Plan, and
for her refusal to receive the required immunizations.
4. On 14 June 2003, the applicant was discharged from the IAARNG under the
provisions of paragraph 8-26i, National Guard Regulation (NGR) 600-200, by
reason of expiration of term of service (ETS). At the time, the applicant
held the rank of SP4/E-4, and had completed a total of 5 years, 6 months,
and 24 days of service for retired pay.
5. The NGB Form 22 issued to the applicant on the date of her discharge,
14 June 2003, confirms she received an honorable conditions discharge (HD)
and that based on the authority for her discharge, she was assigned a
reenlistment eligibility code of RE-4.
6. NGR 600-200 establishes standards, policies and procedures for the
management of enlisted ARNG soldiers. Chapter 8 contains policies and
procedures for the separation/discharge of enlisted personnel from the
ARNG. Paragraph 8-26 provides the procedures for discharging members from
the State ARNG and/or from the Reserve of the Army. Paragraph 8-26i
contains guidance on separating members if an approved bar to reenlistment
or extension is in effect, or the soldier is ineligible for extension due
to overweight, APFT failure, or a positive urinalysis, but is not barred at
time of ETS. It further stipulates that members separating under this
provision of the regulation will be assigned an eligibility code of RE-3.
Table 8-1 contains the applicable definitions for
RE codes. It states, in pertinent part, that RE-3 applies to members whose
disqualification allows for eligibility for reenlistment with a waiver.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's request for upgrade of her RE code was carefully
considered and found to have merit.
2. By regulation, members separated by reason of bar to enlistment (ETS)
are assigned an RE code of RE-3. The evidence of record shows she was
erroneously assigned an RE-4 code. Therefore, the applicant’s state Army
National Guard records and the Department of the Army records of the
individual concerned should be corrected by showing she was assigned an RE-
3 code on her 14 June 2003 NGB Form 22.
3. Based on the authority and reason for the applicant’s discharge, it
would not be appropriate to upgrade her eligibility code to RE-1 as she
requests. The reason for her discharge does support an RE-3 code, which
would only allow for reenlistment with a waiver approved by the proper
authority based on the needs of the Army.
4. The applicant is advised that although no further change to her RE code
is recommended, this does not mean she 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 she desires to reenlist, she should
contact a local recruiter to determine her 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
___SK __ ___DJA _ __DRT _ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
1. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant a recommendation for partial relief. As a result, the Board
recommends that the state Army National Guard records and the Department of
the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected, as appropriate,
by amending her
14 June 2003 NGB Form 22 by deleting the current entry in Item 26
(Reenlistment Eligibility) and replacing it with the entry “RE-3”; and by
providing her a correction to her separation document that reflects this
change.
2. The Board further determined that the evidence presented is
insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief. As a result,
the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to
upgrading her RE code to RE-1.
____Stanley Kelley_______
CHAIRPERSON
INDEX
|CASE ID |AR20050004221 |
|SUFFIX | |
|RECON |YYYYMMDD |
|DATE BOARDED |2005-11-08 |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE |HD |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE |2003/06/14 |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY |NGR AR 600-200 . . . . . |
|DISCHARGE REASON |ETS (Bar to reenlistment) |
|BOARD DECISION |GRANT |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY |Mr. Schneider |
|ISSUES 1. |110 |
|2. | |
|3. | |
|4. | |
|5. | |
|6. | |
-----------------------
[pic]
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068816C070402
Orders Number 018-010, dated 18 January 2001, issued by the Military Department of Indiana, directs that the applicant be discharged from the ARNG and as a Reserve member of the Army, effective 18 December 2000. Further, the Board finds an unintentional injustice was served upon the applicant as a result of her never being properly counseled on the service remaining requirement for her to be transferred to the USAR, and because she was never afforded the opportunity to take the necessary...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004101321C070208
The applicant continues that her initial Federal Recognition packet was never processed by the National Guard Bureau (NGB) and since her initial Federal Recognition packet was not processed by the NGB, her temporary Federal Recognition expired and therefore, she could not be timely promoted. If the member meets the qualifications and requirements for Federal Recognition, the Chief, NGB extends permanent Federal Recognition to the member in the grade and branch in which the member is...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080010006
On 27 May 2003, his unit initiated a DA Form 268 (Report to Suspend Favorable Personnel Actions FLAG) for an adverse action abuse of illegal drugs. The applicant's NGB Form 22 with effective date of 8 February 2004 shows he was honorably discharged under the authority of NGR 600-200, paragraph 8-26i, by reason of ETS No obligation. A statement in Item 18 (Remarks) indicates the following, "FLAGGED FOR APFT 031012//FLAGGED FOR ADVERSE ACTIONS 030527 USE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS."
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015770
Counsel provides the following documents in support of the applicants application: Enlistment Contract, dated 16 January 1970; DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), for the period ending 25 September 1970; Enlistment Contract, dated 16 January 1974; NGB Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service), dated 15 January 2003; Page 3 of DA Form 20 (Enlisted Qualification Record); Award certificate for the Meritorious Service Medal, dated 11 October 1999; Five...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060009074
The lawyer further indicated that the militarys determination that the applicants 1995 misdemeanor convictions constituted a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under the Lautenberg Amendment was an error. This regulation states that the Domestic Violence Amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968 (Section 922, Title 18, United States Code), the Lautenberg Amendment, makes it unlawful for any person to transfer, issue, sell or otherwise dispose of firearms or ammunition to any person...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002753
The applicant requests correction of his records to show award of the National Defense Service Medal and the Army Commendation Medal; any other awards, decorations, and campaign ribbons he may have earned; and promotion to the next higher grade. Army Regulation 600-8-22 (Military awards) provides for award of the National Defense Service Medal. With respect to award of the National Defense Service Medal, the evidence of record shows that the applicant was ordered to ADT and entered active...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040000151C070208
There is no evidence that the applicant was awarded permanent Federal Recognition by the National Guard Bureau based on the results of the 22 March 2001 IAARNG Federal Recognition Board (FRB). If the member meets the qualifications and requirements for Federal Recognition, the Chief, NGB extends permanent Federal Recognition to the member in the grade and branch in which the member is qualified. Records show that the applicant was granted temporary Federal Recognition effective 19 May 2001...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060424C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. 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: Normally, a soldier will be discharged or REFRAD on the date he or she completes the period for which enlisted or ordered to active duty.
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080011273
Application Receipt Date: 2008/07/17 Prior Review: Prior Review Date: NA I. It indicates that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Paragraph 8-35i(1), NGR 600-200, by reason of acts or patterns of misconduct, with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions, with a reenlistment eligibility (RE) code of "3." c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicants available military records during the period...
ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080008805
The record of evidence indicates the Applicant was discharged from the US Army Reserve with an honorable discharge on 020820, Orders D-08-233703, period of service NIF. The record also contains a California Army National Guard Form 600-2R (draft), Request for Discharge of Enlisted Members, dated 3 October 1999, indicating the Applicant was AWOL having missed 9 drills, and recommending the Applicant be discharged with an under other than honorable conditions discharge. The record contains a...