IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  18 September 2008

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080009606 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that her Reentry (RE) Code of RE-4 be changed to RE-2.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she was issued an RE Code of RE-4 at the time of her discharge.  She also states that she petitioned to have her discharge upgraded, which was granted; however, the RE Code was not adjusted.  The applicant further states that she thought the RE Code would be automatically adjusted with the upgrade of her discharge and was not aware that she had to request adjustment of her RE Code.  The applicant concludes by stating she is requesting her RE Code be changed to RE-2 so that she may enlist in the Army National Guard.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentary evidence.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s military service records show she enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 27 April 2001 and entered active duty in the Regular Army for a period of 4 years on 20 June 2001.  Upon completion of basic combat and advanced individual training, she was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 92A (Automated Logistical Specialist).  The applicant served in the Republic of Korea from 24 December 2001 through 24 December 2002.  Upon 



return to the continental United States, she was assigned to E Battery,
1st Battalion, 1st Air Defense Artillery, 31st Air Defense Artillery Brigade, Fort Bliss, Texas.

2.  The applicant's military service records contain a DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 22 March 2004, that shows the captain serving as Commander,
E Battery, 1st Battalion, 1st Air Defense Artillery, 31st Air Defense Artillery Brigade, Fort Bliss, Texas, preferred charges against the applicant for violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) that included, Charge I, violation of the UCMJ, Article 86, with 9 specifications; Charge II, violation of the UCMJ, Article 91, with 1 specification; Charge III, violation of the UCMJ, Article 92, with 2 specifications; Charge IV, violation of the UCMJ, Article 112a, with
1 specification; and Charge V, violation of the UCMJ, Article 134, with
2 specifications.

3.  The applicant’s military service records contain a copy of Headquarters,
U.S. Army Air Defense Artillery Center and Fort Bliss, Fort Bliss, Texas, Special Court-Martial Order Number 22, dated 1 December 2004.  This order shows, in pertinent part, that the applicant having been arraigned on the charges and specifications, the proceedings were terminated on 31 March 2004 because of the applicant’s request for discharge pursuant to the provisions of Charter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.

4.  On 24 April 2004, the applicant submitted her voluntary request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  On 14 May 2004, the major general serving as Commander, U.S. Army Air Defense Artillery Center and Fort Bliss, Fort Bliss, Texas, approved the applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, Chapter 10; withdrew and dismissed the charges and specifications; and directed that the applicant be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions with an RE Code of RE-4.

5.  The applicant’s military service records contain a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) that shows she entered active duty on
20 June 2001 and was discharged, in the rank of private/pay grade E-1, under other than honorable conditions on 26 May 2004.  Item 29 (Dates of Time Lost During This Period) shows she had time lost under Title 10, United States Code, section 972, from 16 December 2003 through 17 December 2003.  At the time, the applicant was credited with completing 2 years, 11 months, and 6 days net active service this period.  The DD Form 214 also shows that the separation 


authority and reason for her discharge was Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Based on the authority and reason for separation, the applicant was assigned a Separation Program Designator (SPD) Code of “KFS” and an RE Code of “4.”  

6.  On 25 June 2004, the applicant submitted a DD Form 293 (Application for Review of Discharge or Separation from the Armed Forces of the United States), that shows she requested upgrade of her under other than honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge.  On 27 July 2005, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), after careful consideration of the applicant’s military records and all other available evidence, determined that the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable and denied her appeal.  The applicant was notified of the ADRB’s decision on 29 July 2005.

7.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations) prescribes policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the force while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Soldiers for a variety of reasons.  Chapter 10 (Discharge for the Good of the Service) of this Army regulation provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses, the punishment for any of which includes a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, may submit a request for discharge for the good of the Service.

8.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator 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 identifies the SPD code of “KFS” as the appropriate code to assign Regular Army enlisted Soldiers who are voluntarily discharged under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, based upon a request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.

9.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program), in pertinent part, provides 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.  RE Code “4” applies to persons who have a non-waivable disqualification and may not request reentry.  The Army regulation further provides that, prior service Army personnel will be advised that RE codes may be changed only if they are determined to be administratively incorrect.





DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends, in effect, that her RE Code should be changed to
RE-2 so that she may reenter military service and enlist in the Army National Guard.

2.  The applicant’s request for change of the RE Code that she received in conjunction with her discharge from the U.S. Army and the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review were carefully considered.  

3.  The applicant’s request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the Service to avoid trial by court-martial was voluntary, administratively correct, and in compliance with applicable regulations.  In addition, the evidence of record shows the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time, all requirements of law and regulations were met, and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

4.  Contrary to the applicant’s belief, her request to the ADRB was unanimously denied on 27 July 2005 after the applicant’s personal appearance before a formal hearing in Washington, D.C.

5.  The evidence of record shows that the RE Code of “4” that the applicant received was appropriately assigned based on the authority and reason for her discharge.  Thus, the RE Code “4” assigned at the time of the applicant's discharge was, and remains, valid.  Therefore, there is no basis to change the applicant’s RE Code.

6.  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
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080009606



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080009606



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1