RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  10 April 2008
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070018963 


	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. Joyce A. Wright

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Mr. John T. Meixell

Chairperson

Mr. Chester A. Damian

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 the Reentry (RE) Code of "4," in item 27, of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), be upgraded to a more favorable code.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his RE Code of "4" makes it impossible for him to reenlist in the Army.  He states that prior to his discharge in February 2007, he was absent without leave (AWOL) for or about 90 days.  At that time, his fiancée was 8 months pregnant and homeless.  Despite various personnel (sic) problems, he turned himself in to his advanced individual training AIT unit.  He is now asking for the opportunity to reenlist, therefore, he needs his RE Code status changed. 

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 24 May 2006.  He was scheduled for training in military occupation specialty (MOS), 52D, Power Generation Equipment Repairer. 

2.  The applicant departed AWOL on 16 October 2006 while attending AIT at Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG), Maryland.  He was dropped from the rolls of his unit on 15 November 2006.  He surrendered to military authorities at APG on 9 January 2007.

3.  Charges were preferred against the applicant on 18 January 2007 for being AWOL from 16 October 2006 to 9 January 2007.  His conduct rendered him triable by courts-martial which could have led to a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.

4.  On 18 January 2007, the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  In doing so, he acknowledged he understood he could encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life and could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) if he were issued a under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.  He waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.


5.  In his request for discharge, the applicant stated, "under no circumstances do I desire further rehabilitation, for I have no desire to perform further military service." 

6.  On 1 February 2007, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an UOTHC discharge.  

7.  The applicant was discharged on 16 February 2007.  He had a total of 
6 months of creditable service and 83 days of time lost due to being AWOL.

8.  Item 26 (Separation Code), of the applicant's DD Form 214, shows the entry "KFS."  Item 27, of the applicant’s DD Form 214, shows the entry "4" and the narrative reason for his separation is, "in lieu of trial by court-martial."

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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.

10.  Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned reentry 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 reentry codes, including RA RE codes.

11.  RE-4 applies to persons not qualified for continued service by virtue of being separated from the service with non-waivable disqualifications such as persons discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

12.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table, dated October 1999, provides instructions for determining the RE Code for Active Army Soldiers and Reserve Component Soldiers separated for cause.  Those individuals who are separated and who have been given an SPD Code of "KFS" will be identified with an RE Code of "4."


13.  Army Regulation 635-5-1, in effect at that time, prescribed the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the separation code to be used for these stated reasons.  The regulation shows that the separation code "KFS", as shown on the applicant's DD Form 214, is appropriate for discharge when the narrative reason for discharge is "voluntary," in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The authority for discharge under this separation code is Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's discharge on 16 February 2007 appears to have been accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations.

2.  The evidence shows the applicant was voluntarily discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The separation code of "KFS" and RE Code of "4" were entered in their appropriate spaces on the DD Form 214 and the narrative reason for his discharge was shown to be, "in lieu of trial by court-martial."

3.  The applicant has provided no evidence to show that either his RE Code or separation code is improper or inequitable or should be changed.

4.  The applicant's separation code of "KFS" and his RE Code of “4” were appropriate at time of separation and they are still appropriate.

5.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the applicant has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request and he has not shown error, injustice, or inequity for the relief, he now seeks.  

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JTM __  __CAD__  __QAS__   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 T. Meixell    __
      CHAIRPERSON