RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  23 August 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070003257 


	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.  


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Mr. Mohammed R. Elhaj

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Lester Echols

Chairperson

Mr. Richard T. Dunbar

Member

Mr. John T. Meixell

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 records be corrected by upgrading his reentry code (RE Code) from 4 to 1.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he had served over 18 years and did not have any negative counseling in his record.  He further states that the punishment he endured as a result of his separation made him a stronger person.  

3.  The applicant provides the following documentations in support of his request:

	a.  Copy of memorandum, dated 1 September 2004 and signed by the Fort Stewart, Georgia, Senior Defense Counsel, detailing the events that led to the applicant's separation.

	b.  Copy of electronic mail dated 20 August 2004, an inquiry from the applicant's Fort Stewart, Georgia, Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) attorney to another SJA attorney inquiring the status of the applicant's request for separation under Chapter 10.

	a.  Copy of the Army Discharge Review Board Case Report and Directive, dated 9 February 2007, that upgraded the applicant's discharge.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 August 1986.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 92W (Water Treatment Specialist).  The highest rank he achieved while on active duty was sergeant first class/pay grade E-7.  

2.  The applicant’s records show that during his tenure on active duty, he completed 2 overseas tours and served in Iraq during the period 1 September 2002 through 26 August 2003.  The applicant's records do not show any significant acts of valor during his military service

3.  The applicant's records show that he earned the following awards during his military service: the Bronze Star Medal, the Meritorious Service Medal (2nd Oak Leaf Cluster), the Army Commendation Medal (4th Oak Leaf Cluster), the Army Achievement Medal (4th Oak Leaf Cluster), the Good Conduct Medal (5th Award), the Army Service Ribbon; the Overseas Service Ribbon (2nd Award), the National Defense Service Medal (2nd Award), the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Southwest Asia Service Medal with 2 bronze service bars, the Korea Defense Service Medal, the Humanitarian Service Medal (2nd Award), the NCO Professional Development Ribbon, the Kuwait Liberation Medal (K), and the Kuwait Liberation Medal (SA).

4.  The applicant's service records do not reveal a disciplinary history of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).

5.  On 22 April 2004, charges were referred against the applicant for failure to obey a general regulation by having inappropriate relationships with one of his subordinates and on 29 April 2004, the Commander, 559th Quartermaster Battalion, Fort Stewart, Georgia, relieved the applicant from his position as a Detachment Sergeant.

6.  On 2 June 2004, the applicant's intermediate commander recommended a special court-martial empowered to adjudge a bad conduct discharge to the approval authority, and on 17 June 2004, the Fort Stewart, Georgia, SJA also recommended the charges and specifications be tried by special court-martial empowered to adjudge a bad conduct discharge.

7.  On 12 August 2004, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were available to him.  Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested a discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations).  

8.  The applicant's records show that the separation authority disapproved the applicant's request for a discharge on 17 August 2004.  However, records also show that on 24 August 2004, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he receive an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge and be reduced to the lowest enlisted rank.  On 15 September 2004, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he completed a total of 18 years and 19 days of creditable active military service.

9.  On  9 February 2007, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) reviewed and approved the applicant's request for an upgrade of his characterization of service from "Under Other Than Honorable Conditions" to "Honorable," changed the separation authority for discharge from "Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10" to "Army Regulation 635-200, Paragraph 5-3", the narrative reason for separation from "In Lieu Of Trial By Court-Martial" to  "Secretarial Authority,", the Separation Code from "KFS" to "KFF", and restored the applicant's grade from "private/pay grade E-1" to "sergeant first class/pay grade E-7."   The ADRB elected not to amend the applicant's RE code.

10.  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 (UOTHC) is normally considered appropriate.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200, in pertinent parts, states 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 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program), 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 Regular Army RE codes.

	a.  RE–1 applies to persons completing their term of service who are considered qualified to reenter the Army.

	b.  RE-4 applies to individuals separated from last period of service with a nonwaiverable disqualification.  This includes anyone with a Department of the Army imposed bar to reenlistment in effect at time of separation, or separated for any reason (except length of service retirement) with 18 or more years of active federal service.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his RE code, currently RE-4, should be changed to RE-1.
2.  The evidence confirms that the applicant’s RE code was assigned based on the fact that he was separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  He received the appropriate RE code associated with his discharge.

3.  The Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) does not correct records solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for other programs or benefits.  The RE-4 assigned to the applicant at the time of his discharge is correct.  Although the ADRB directed a change to the applicant's characterization of service, it did not change his RE code.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy that requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__le____  __rtd___  __jtm___  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.




							Lester Echols
______________________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070003257
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20070823
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(DENY)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
100.0300
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.