RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	


	BOARD DATE:	7 February 2008  
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070012578 


	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

Ms. Judy Blanchard

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. William D. Powers

Chairperson

Ms. Rose M. Lys

Member

Mr. Qawiy A. Sabree

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 Eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow reenlistment.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he joined the Army wanting to be a part of a team and to serve his country.  When he joined he did not have a Ranger contract, but as he went through basic training, he excelled and was at the top of his graduating class earning the opportunity to attend Ranger training.  He then went through Airborne training where he earned his wings with follow on Ranger training.  He found that being a Ranger was not the best decision at the time for his newly wed wife and him.  Thinking that it was the best decision at the time, he dropped his Ranger contract three weeks into the program and one week from graduating.  He was then sent to Fort Drum, New York.  He states that upon arrival his platoon sergeant told him that he was just a number and he did not care how he makes it over there, just as long as he goes.  The applicant was under the impression that the Army was a team that worked together and said that he joined the Army when the motto for the Army was “An Army of One.”  He did not take what his sergeant had said very well.  Subsequently he missed movement and was punished with a discharge under other than honorable conditions and with an RE code of 4.  Through his career he was an outstanding Soldier and always obeyed his superiors.  However, he is now asking for the privilege and honor to receive a second chance to go back through the Ranger program and to serve his country and so he asks this Board to please consider his plea.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored letter in support of this application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s available record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 February 2006, for a period of 3 years.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).  The highest grade he attained was pay grade E-2.  After the applicant had completed the required training he was reassigned to a unit at Fort Drum, New York.

2.  On an unknown date the applicant received orders for deployment to Iraq with a reporting date of 16 October 2006.  



3.  On 12 October 2006, the applicant requested counseling from his unit chaplain in reference to his concerns about being deployed to Iraq.  On 
13 October 2006, the chaplain visited the applicant’s Rear Detachment Commander and provided insight to the counseling session that he had with the applicant.  The chaplain told the unit commander that the applicant was a little nervous or scared about his deployment to Iraq and he informed the applicant that his concerns were all natural feelings.  The applicant’s available record indicates that he was seen on two occasions by the mental health personnel for physical threats to himself and others. 

4. On 13 and 16 October 2006, the applicant missed two appointments to have his equipment inspected before deployment.  He also missed two manifest calls and boarding on the bus.  

5.  On 19 October 2006, the unit commander spoke to the applicant about the ramifications of missing movement.  The unit commander decided to give the applicant the weekend to talk to his wife and father regarding his decision and the potential consequences of missing a movement.  

6.  On 23 October 2006, a Report of Mental Status Evaluation found that the applicant had the mental capacity to understand and participate in administrative proceedings and he was psychiatrically cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate.  

7.  On the same day, the unit commander spoke to the applicant about his decision for deployment.  The applicant informed the commander that he was not going to deploy.  The applicant stated that his wife did not influence his decision and his father was disappointed that he was not going to fulfill his commitment to the Army.  

8.  On 6 November 2006, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for missing the movement of C Company, 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment with which he was required in the course of duty to move.  

9.  On 13 November 2006, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed action against him and consulted with legal counsel.  The applicant signed a memorandum waiving his rights to an administrative separation board.  He also waived a personal appearance before a separation board.  The waiver was conditioned upon the acceptance and execution by the Convening Authority of the Offer to Plead Guilty (OTPG).  Upon acceptance of the OTPG and execution of the Summary Court-Martial (SCM) pursuant to the OTPG, the waiver of his 
rights to a separation board would become unconditional even if his chain of command decided to separate him with an other than honorable conditions discharge.  The applicant acknowledged that the request was of his own free will and the ramifications of his decision were fully discussed in detail with his military counsel.

10.  On 22 November 2006, the applicant was convicted by an SCM for deliberately missing the movement of C Company, 4th Battalion, 31st Infantry Regiment, with which he was required in the course of duty to move.  

11.  On 7 December 2006, the applicant was notified by his unit commander that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of chapter
14 -12c, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of Misconduct (Serious Offense), with a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  

12.  On 14 December 2006, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  It was further recommended that the rehabilitative requirements be waived.

13.  On 4 January 2007, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c by reason of misconduct (serious offense), with a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  The separation document (DD Form 214) he was issued at the time confirms that he held the rank of private (PV1)/E-1, and had completed a total of 10 months and 
27 days of active military service.  The DD Form 214 also shows that based on the authority and reason for his separation, he was assigned a separation program designator (SPD) code of JKQ and an RE code of RE-4.  

14.  The applicant authenticated his DD Form 214 with his signature in Item 21 (Signature of Member Being Separated).  There is no indication that he questioned the SPD or RE code listed on his separation document at that time.  

15.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the policy for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion, or absences without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation 

is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.  Army policy states that a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.

16.  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-4 applies to persons who are permanently disqualified for continued Army service.

17.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.  The SPD code of JKQ is the appropriate code to assign Soldiers separated under the provisions Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14-12c, by reason of misconduct (serious offense).  

18.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

19.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s request that his RE code be changed to one which would allow him to reenter the Army was carefully considered.  However, by regulation the RE-4 code assigned to the applicant was the proper code to assign members separating under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14-12c for misconduct (serious offense).  As a result, the RE-4 code and the narrative reason for separation were and still are appropriate.  

2.  After carefully evaluating the evidence of record, the applicant’s discharge processing was conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time and the character of his service was commensurate with his overall record of military service.  This includes the assignment of his SPD and RE codes.  Lacking evidence to the contrary, it is determined that all requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Therefore, given the circumstances in this case and his overall record of service, there is insufficient evidence to support his request.  An upgrade of his RE code is not warranted at this time.  

3.  RE-4 applies to persons who are permanently disqualified for continued Army service.

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

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__QS____  __RML__  ___WDP_  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.




____William D. Powers____
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR
SUFFIX

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

BOARD DECISION
(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.