RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  31 January 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070013461 


	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. Dean L. Turnbull

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. John Infante

Chairperson

Mr. Eric N. Anderson

Member

Mr. David K. Haasenritter

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 her reentry eligibility (RE) code RE-4 be upgraded to RE-3.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that her RE-4 was unjust because she was hospitalized for a mental condition.  She states that she and her doctor tried to get her removed from her unit and raised the issue of her mistreatment and threats of violence she received from her team leaders.  These threats were done during the pre-deployment to Iraq.  Also, her Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) was caused by her unit's command.

3.  She continues, in effect, that she chose to leave because no one would help her and her thinking was unclear.  She now knows that being absent without leave (AWOL) was wrong, but she felt that her life was in danger if she had stayed with the unit.  Because of this ordeal she is being denied veterans benefits and now she has to depend on the State to support her family.  Before this incident she had a good report with the Army, so now she would really like the opportunity to redeem herself and to enlist again.

4.  The applicant provides a copy a Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) decision dated 13 August 2007.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military service records show that she initially entered active duty on 12 July 2000.  She completed all the necessary training and was awarded the military occupational specialty (MOS) 92A (Automated Logistical Specialist).  The applicant served until she was honorably discharged from active duty due to parenthood.  She was transferred o the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Annual Training) St. Louis, Missouri after serving 1 year, 6 months, and 10 days of active service.

2.  According to Headquarters, XVIII Airborne Corps and Fort Bragg, Permanent Orders 336-001 dated 1 December 2004, the applicant was on orders to be deployed in support of contingency operation Iraqi Freedom effective on or about 3 December 2004.

3.  Her military service records show she went AWOL during the period  
17 September 2005 to 2 November 2005.

4.  On 7 November 2005, charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL during the period 17 September 2005 to 2 November 2005.

5.  On 7 November 2005, 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 her.  Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.

6.  In her request for discharge, the applicant indicated that she understood that by requesting discharge, she was admitting guilt to the charges against her, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  She further acknowledged she understood that if her discharge request was approved, she could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that she could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and that she could be deprived of her rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and state law.  She also acknowledged that she understood that she may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge.  She further understand that there is no automatic upgrading or review by any Government agency of a less than honorable discharge and that she must apply to the Army Discharge Review Board or the Army Board for Correction of Military Records if she wished review of her discharge.  She realized that the act of consideration by either board does not imply that her discharge will be upgraded. The applicant submitted no statement on her own behalf.

7.  On 11 January 2006, the applicant's commander forwarded his recommendation for separation of the applicant to the separation approving authority.

8.  On 19 January 2006, the approving authority approved the applicant's request and directed the applicant be discharged in lieu of trail by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), Chapter  
10, and her service be characterized as Under Other Than Honorable Conditions.

9.  On 8 February 2006, the applicant was discharged from active duty in lieu of trial by court martial, for the good of the service, in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10.  She was assigned a separation program designator code (SPD) code of KFS and assigned an RE code of RE-4.  According to her DD Form 214, she had completed a total of 1 year, 6 months, and 10 days of active service and accrued 45 days of time lost.

10.  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 and the US Army Reserve.  Chapter 3 of this 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.

11.  Table 3-1 (U.S. Army reentry eligibility codes), of Army Regulation  
601-210 states that RE-4 applies to persons separated from last period of service with a non-waivable disqualification.

12.  AR 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designated Codes), Table 2-3, states that the SPD code KFS denotes voluntary discharge, in lieu of court-marital.

13.  The Army Human Resources Command publishes a cross-reference of SPD and RE codes.  This cross-reference shows that an SPD code of KFS is assigned an RE code of RE-4. 

14.  The applicant applied to the ADRB on 3 August 2006.  On 1 August 
2007, ADRB reviewed the applicant's record and determined that the characterization of service was too harsh, and as a result it is inequitable.  The Board found that the length of the applicant's service; to include her combat service, and the circumstances surrounding the AWOL, mitigated the discrediting entry in her service record.  The Board voted to grant partial relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of service to general, under honorable conditions.  However, the Board determined that the reason for discharge was both proper and equitable and voted not to change it.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200 Personnel Separations 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 at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that her RE code RE-4 should be upgraded to RE-3.

2.  There is no evidence or indication that the applicant was hospitalized for a mental condition, that she was mistreated by her team leaders, that she was threatened, or had PTSD.  As such, there is no evidence or indication that there was an error or injustice, which caused the applicant to be discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial.

3.  Since the applicant was properly discharged, there is no reason to change a correctly assigned RE code.

4.  The applicant's statement that she chose to leave because no one would help her and her thinking was unclear and now she knows that AWOL was wrong but she felt her life was in danger if she had stayed with the unit is noted.  However, her statement is not sufficient to mitigate her RE-4.  Therefore, she is not entitled to correction of her records to upgrade her RE-4 to RE-3.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JI        _  __ENA__  __DKH__  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.




____John Infante    _____
          CHAIRPERSON



INDEX

CASE ID
AR
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20080131
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.