RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  4 April 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070016390 


	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. Phyllis M. Perkins 

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. Eric N. Andersen

Chairperson

Mr. Peter B. Fisher

Member

Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann

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 (RE) code be changed from RE-4 to a more favorable RE code. 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he admits to being absent without leave (AWOL) for 29 days and would like to join the Indiana Army National Guard to redeem himself.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) in support of this application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 25 May 2005.  Item 11 (Primary Specialty) of the DD Form 214 does not show that the applicant was awarded a military occupational specialty.  

2.  The applicant's service records reveal a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for being disrespectful towards a senior noncommissioned officer on 10 January 2006 for being AWOL during the period 10 January 2006 through 31 January 2006; and for failure to go to appointed place of duty on 4 February 2006.

3.  The applicant's service records contain a DD Form 616 (Report of Return of Absentee), dated 23 July 2006, which shows the applicant was AWOL on 22 February 2006 and remained AWOL until 23 July 2006 when he surrendered to military authorities at Fort Knox, Kentucky. 

4.  A DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 27 July 2006, shows the applicant was charged with one specification of being AWOL during the period 22 February 2006 through 23 July 2006.

5.  On 27 July 2006, the applicant submitted a request for discharge in lieu of trial by courts-martial under the provisions Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 10.  In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he had not been coerced into requesting discharge and had been advised of the implications that were attached to the request.

6.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial that provided for a punitive discharge, the effects of a request for discharge in lieu of trial by courts-martial, and of the rights available to him.  He further acknowledged that he could be discharged under other than honorable conditions and be furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.  

7.  On 15 August 2006, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged on 25 August 2006 under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  This form further shows he was separated in the pay grade of E-1, with a reentry code of RE-4 and issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  This form also shows the applicant completed a total of 9 months and 9 days of creditable active service and had over 140 days of time lost due to AWOL.  

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative 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

9.  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 (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 RA RE codes.  RE-4 applies to persons who are separated from last period of service with a non-waivable disqualification.  

10.  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.  It states, in pertinent part, that the SPD code of KFS is the appropriate code to assign to Soldiers who 

separated under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table included in the regulation stipulates that the appropriate RE code assignment for the SPD code of KFS is RE Code 4. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his RE code should be changed to a more favorable code which would allow him to reenlist in the Indiana Army National Guard.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All requirements of law and regulation were met, and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

3.  By regulation, the RE code assigned to members separated by reason of In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial (KFS) is RE-4.  In this case, the RE-4 code assigned to the applicant was the proper code for members separating for commission of a serious offense.  Therefore, the applicant's reenlistment code was correct at the time of his separation.

4.  Absent any evidence of error or injustice that would warrant further relief, the RE-4 code assigned to the applicant remains valid.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_PBF____  _JCR___  _ENA____  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.





_Eric N. Andersen___
          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.