RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  6 March 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060010305 


	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.


	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 of 4 be changed so that he may reenlist in the Armed Forces.

2.  The applicant essentially states that he had no adverse actions in his military career, but that he had a locally imposed bar to reenlistment imposed on him for failing the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT).  He also states that failing the APFT should not warrant an RE code of 4.  He further states, in effect, that he has been trying to reenlist for about 8 years, and had not been able to find out why he could not reenlist until now.  He concluded by stating that he would like to reenlist and finish his career in the military.

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty), a letter of recommendation, dated 21 October 1988, from his former company commander, and an unsigned letter, dated 10 July 2006, from a recruiter from the Texarkana Recruiting Station, Oklahoma City Recruiting Battalion, United States Army Recruiting Command in support of this application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which occurred on 24 October 1988, the date of his discharge from the Regular Army.  The application submitted in this case is dated 28 June 2006.

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 limitations 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’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 
7 March 1986.  He completed basic and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 76V (Materiel Storage and Handling Specialist).  He then departed for an overseas tour in Germany in July 1986.

4.  On 10 August 1987, the applicant was counseled for failing a second APFT.  On 22 February 1988, he was counseled again for failing another APFT.  He was further counseled on 24 March 1988 and 17 May 1988 for additional APFT failures.  It was noted that during his counseling on 17 May 1988 it shows that the applicant had been medically evaluated to see if any medical problems caused him to fail the APFT, but that he was medically cleared.

5.  On 26 May 1988, the applicant’s company commander requested that a bar to reenlistment be initiated on the applicant.  In his request, the company commander stated that the applicant does not meet the standards of Field Manual 21-20 (Physical Fitness Training), and was unfit to be permitted to remain on active duty.  

6.  On 15 June 1988, the applicant’s battalion commander approved the bar to reenlistment on the applicant.  

7.  On 22 August 1988, the applicant requested that he be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 16, paragraph 16-5b, as he perceived that he could not overcome his locally imposed bar to reenlistment.  In his request, the applicant stated that he understood the once he was separated he would not be permitted to reenlist at a later date.

8.  On or about 25 September 1988, the proper authority approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Paragraph 16-5b.  On 24 October 1988, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  

9.  Item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of his DD Form 214 has an entry of “Locally Imposed Bar to Reenlistment.”  Item 26 (Separation Code) has a Separation Program Designator (SPD) of “KGF.”  The SPD code of “KGF” translates into “Locally Imposed Bar to Reenlistment.”  The SPD code of “KGF” was also the appropriate code for the applicant based upon the guidance provided in Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator [SPD] Codes) for Soldiers separating under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Paragraph 16-5b, for a locally imposed bar to reenlistment.  Additionally, Table 
2-3 (SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table), Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) establishes RE code 4 as the proper RE code to assign to soldiers discharged for this reason.

10.  In a letter of recommendation, dated 21 October 1988, the applicant’s former company commander, who appears to have assumed command of his unit in Germany after his request for discharge was approved, essentially stated that it was a pleasure working with the applicant.  He also stated, in effect, that the applicant displayed a can-do attitude, and quickly and professionally responded when called upon.  He also stated, in pertinent part, that he would not hesitate one moment if such an opportunity arose to work with the applicant again.

11.  In an unsigned letter, dated 10 July 2006, a recruiter from the Texarkana Recruiting Station, Oklahoma City Recruiting Battalion, United States Army Recruiting Command recommended the applicant for enlistment and an RE code review.  She also stated that it was her privilege to enlist the applicant’s stepson into the United States Army.  She also stated, in pertinent part, the she sincerely believed that the applicant is more than qualified to serve in the United States Army.  She also stated that the applicant’s accomplishments and military education credentials were impressive, and it was incomprehensible to her how he could have received an RE code of 4 and a bar to reenlistment.  She also essentially stated that the applicant would be a great asset to the United States Army, and that she would be proud to serve beside him.

12.  Paragraph 2-1 of Army Regulation 635-5-1 provides that SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations that identify reasons for, and types of, separation from active duty. The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation.  They are intended exclusively for the internal use of Department of Defense (DOD) and the military services to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data.  

13.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program) prescribes eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army and the Army Reserve.  This regulation provides, in pertinent part, that RE codes may only be changed if they are determined to be administratively incorrect. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his RE code of 4 should be changed so that he may reenlist in the Armed Forces.

2.  The applicant’s RE code of 4, establishing his ineligibility for enlistment/ reenlistment, was correctly entered on his separation document in accordance with governing regulations.

3.  There is no apparent basis for removal or waiver of the applicant’s disqualification that established the basis for the RE Code 4.  The letter of recommendation from the applicant’s former company commander, and the letter from the recruiter were carefully considered.  While the applicant’s desire to continue in the service to his country is commendable, there are no provisions authorizing the change of an RE code for this purpose.

4.  The applicant’s RE code is determined to be administratively correct; therefore, there is no basis for granting relief to the applicant in this case.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or injustice now under consideration on 24 October 1988; therefore, the time for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice expired on 
23 October 1991.  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 timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JA____  ___SF __  ___RV  __  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for correction of the records of the individual concerned.




____James Anderholm______
          CHAIRPERSON
INDEX

CASE ID
AR20060010305
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20070306
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR . . . . .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
AR 15-185
ISSUES         1.
110.0000.0000
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.