RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  04 March 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070016398 


	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. James E. Anderholm

Chairperson

Mr. William D. Powers

Member

Mr. Jerome L. Pionk

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 of  
RE-4 be upgraded to RE-3. 

2.  The applicant states while he was in basic training he was absent without leave (AWOL) for 45 days.  He noticed in block 28 of his DD Form 
214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from active Duty) it states in lieu of trial by court-martial and his RE Code is RE-4.  He has seen other DD Forms  
214 with AWOL that have been classified with RE-3.  Perhaps this has been an oversight.  He would like to upgrade his RE-4 to RE-3 so he may apply for a waiver to enlist in the Regular Army.  His desire is to serve his country in this time of need.  He was immature at the time of his AWOL.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 and a REDD (Reporting Electronic Distributing Document) Report dated 2 August 2007.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military personnel record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 10 November 2005.  He attended basic combat training but did not complete his training due to AWOL.  The applicant's highest grade held was E-3.

2.  His record shows that he was AWOL during the period 16 January 2006 to  
28 February 2006.

3.  On 6 March 2006, charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 16 January 2006 to 1 March 2006.

4.  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.

5.  In his request for discharge, the applicant indicated that he understood that by requesting discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He further acknowledged he understood that if his discharge request was approved, he could be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and that he could be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and state law.  He also acknowledged that he understood that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of an Under Other Than Honorable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was advised that he may submit any statements he desires in his own behalf, which will accompany his request for discharge.  The applicant did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

6.  On 8 March 2006, the applicant's commander forwarded his recommendation for separation to the approving authority.  In the commander's recommendation it was stated that the applicant's conduct had rendered him triable by courts-martial under the circumstances which could lead to a bad conduct discharge or dishonorable discharge.  The commander continued that, based on his previous record, punishment can be expected to have a minimal rehabilitative effect.  The commander believed a discharge at that time to be in the best interest of all concerned.

7.  On 17 March 2006, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's request and directed the applicant be furnished an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge.  Upon discharge the applicant was reduced to the lowest enlisted grade private/pay grade E-1.

8.  On 29 March 2006, the applicant was discharged from active duty in lieu of trial by court martial.  He was assigned a separation program designator code (SPD) code of KFS and assigned an RE code of RE-4.  According to his DD Form 214, he had completed a total of 3 months and 5 days of active service and accrued 43 days of time lost.

9.  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.

10.  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.

11.  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.

12.  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.

13.  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 requests that his RE code RE-4 be upgraded to RE-3, because he would like to apply for a waiver so that he may enlist in the Regular Army.

2.  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.  The applicant's AWOL renders his service unsatisfactory.

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

4.  The applicant's statement that he has seen other DD Forms 214 with AWOL that has been classified with RE-3 and perhaps this has been an oversight and he was immature at the time of his AWOL is noted.  However, his statement does not contain any fact or circumstance which would warrant an upgrade of his  
RE-4 to RE-3.

5.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must satisfactorily show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JEA__  __WDP__  __JLP ___  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.




___James E. Anderholm _
          CHAIRPERSON


INDEX

CASE ID
AR
SUFFIX

RECON

DATE BOARDED
20080304
TYPE OF DISCHARGE

DATE OF DISCHARGE

DISCHARGE AUTHORITY

DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.