RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080001500 


	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.




Director



Analyst
      The following members, a quorum, were present:




Chairperson



Member



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, a change of his reentry (RE) code of RE-4 to allow him to reenter the service.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was rightfully discharged from the Army because of his abuse of alcohol, which led him to receive three Article 15’s.  He further states, that he has been sober for 15 years.  He is a father and a husband actively mentoring young people in his church youth group.  He would like to have the opportunity to serve again.  He adds that he enlisted right after high school at the age of seventeen.  At that particular time in his life he was drinking very heavily.  He started drinking at about the age of thirteen.  His father abandoned the family when he was three years old and he was brought up in a very unstable environment.  He had issues with authority and low self-esteem.  He was not equipped for Army life and his drinking intensified.  He found it harder and harder to listen to his peers and his chain of command.  He really did not think through his options and now he regrets having requested a discharge.  He quit drinking about 3 years later, after he recommitted his life to the Lord.  He and his family are active in their church and community and they are helping others to see that they do not have to let alcohol damage or guide their lives.  He states that part of any recovery process is to make amends and right wrongs.  This is just one reason why he is requesting enlistment in the Florida National Guard.  He adds that he loves his country and believes it is everyone’s duty to do what they can for others in a time of need.  He humbly asks that he be allowed to serve out his enlistment requirement with the National Guard.    

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored letter, 5 letters of support, 
4 certificates of achievement and 14 pages of his medical records in support of his application.  

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant’s record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 23 October 1984.  He was trained in, awarded, and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 12B (Combat Engineer).  The highest grade he attained was pay grade E-3.

3.  On 30 April 1986, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) for willfully and unlawfully altering a public record.  His imposed punishment was an oral reprimand, a forfeiture of $150.00 pay (suspended for 180 days), 14 days of restriction and 14 days of extra duty.

4.  On 9 July 1986, the applicant accepted NJP for disobeying a lawful order from his superior commissioned officer.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-2, a forfeiture of $150.00 pay, 7 days of restriction and 7 days of extra duty. 

5.  On 16 October 1986, the applicant accepted NJP for being drunk while on duty.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of $150.00 pay, 7 days of restriction and 7 days of extra duty. 

6.  On 23 October 1986, the applicant was notified of his Department of the Army Imposed Bar to Reenlistment under the provisions of Chapter 6.  The applicant was counseled about his undesirable traits which were the basis for the bar action, the effects of the bar action, and his right of appeal.  

7.  The applicant was notified by his unit commander that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 16, paragraph 16-5b, for early separation of personnel denied reenlistment.  The reasons for the separation action cited by the unit commander were that the applicant displayed a pattern of gross misconduct and unsatisfactory duty performance causing an extreme burden on the chain of command and also causing an inordinate amount of the leadership’s time to be spent in attempting to get the applicant to conform to acceptable standards of conduct. 

8.  On 21 November 1986, the applicant requested discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5b; on the basis that he felt he could not overcome the Bar to Reenlistment.  The applicant’s request stated, in pertinent part, “I understand that if my request for separation before my normal ETS [Expiration Term of Service] is approved, it will be for my own convenience.”  He further acknowledged that he understood that if his request for separation was approved, he would not be permitted to reenlist at a later date.  

9.  On 4 December 1986, the separation authority approved the recommendation, waived further rehabilitation efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with an Honorable Discharge Certificate by reason of the inability to overcome local bar to reenlistment.

10.  On 15 December 1986, the applicant was honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5b by reason of locally imposed bar to reenlistment.  The DD Form 214 he was issued at the time confirms that he had completed 2 years, 1 month, and 23 days of active military service and held the pay grade of E-1.  This document also confirms that based on the authority and reason for his separation, he was assigned a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of KGF and an RE code of RE-4.  The applicant authenticated the DD Form 214 with his signature in Item 21 (Signature of Member Being Separated). 

11.  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 KGF is the appropriate code to assign to Soldiers separated under the provisions of paragraph 16-5b, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of 
locally imposed bar to reenlistment.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table included in the regulation establishes RE-4 as the proper code to assign members separated with this SPD code.  

12.  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.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 16-5, in effect at the time, provided for members who were under a locally imposed bar to reenlistment to voluntarily request discharge if they perceived they could not overcome the bar to reenlistment. 


DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contentions were carefully considered.  However, these factors are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant a change to his RE-4 code or the narrative reason for his separation.

2.  The evidence of record confirms that after consulting with legal counsel and being advised of the impact of his discharge request, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge based on his perception that he could not overcome a locally imposed bar to reenlistment.  

3.  The records show that the applicant’s separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

4.  The regulation in effect at the time of the applicant’s separation stipulated that an SPD code of KGF and RE-4 code would be assigned to members separating under the provisions of paragraph 16-5b, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of locally imposed bar to reenlistment.  Further, as evidenced in his voluntary request, the applicant was fully aware of the reason for his separation and that he would not be allowed to reenlist at later date.  As a result, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief at this late date.  

5.  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

___x_____  ___x_____  __x____  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.




      __________x____________
                CHAIRPERSON


ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080001500



2


DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
1901 SOUTH BELL STREET 2ND FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA  22202-4508