IN THE CASE OF:	 

		BOARD DATE:	  21 August 2008

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080010899 


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 his reentry (RE) code of RE-4 be changed, to a code that would allow him to reenter the Army.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was being blackmailed into coming home.  He had to take care of the issue in order not to ruin his name.  He request entry back into the Army and will do anything required to do so.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documents in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s military record shows that enlisted in the Regular Army on
26 September 2005 for a period of 4 years.  The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  

2.  On 11 March 2006, while assigned to a unit at Fort Knox, Kentucky, the applicant was reported for being absent without leave (AWOL).  He was apprehended by civilian authorities and returned to military control on 9 June 2006.  

3.  On 15 June 2006, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from 11 March 2006 to 8 June 2006.  

4.  On the same day, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, the effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions and of the rights available to him.  He acknowledged that he was making the request by his own free will and had not been subjected to any coercion.  By submitting this request he acknowledged that he was guilty of one or more of the charges that were preferred against him.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  He also stated his understanding 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 further indicated that he understood that he could encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of a discharge under other than honorable conditions.  He further acknowledged that he understood that there is neither automatic upgrading nor review by any government agency of a less than honorable discharge and that he must apply to the Army Discharge Review Board or the Army Board of Corrections of Military Records if he wishes a review of his discharge.  He understood that the act of consideration by either board does not imply that his discharge will be upgraded.  He acknowledged that once his request for discharge is submitted, it may be withdrawn only with consent of the Commander exercising general court-martial authority.  The applicant did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  

5.  On 7 July 2006, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be issued an Under Other Than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.  

6.  On 21 July 2006, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The separation document (DD Form 214) he was issued confirms he completed 6 months and 28 days of creditable active military service with 88 days of time lost.  He was assigned a separation program designator (SPD) code of KFS and an RE code of RE-4.  

7.  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 submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include 
the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

8.  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.  

9.  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 separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  The SPD/RE Code cross-reference table shows that RE code 4 is the applicable RE code for SPD code of KFS.  

10.  RE-4 applies to persons who are permanently disqualified for continued Army service.

11.  On 11 January 2008, the ADRB denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contentions were carefully considered.  However, by regulation, the RE-4 code assigned to the applicant was the proper code to assign members separating under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  As a result, the RE-4 code and the narrative reason for separation were and still are appropriate.  

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  This includes the assignment of his SPD and RE codes.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were protected throughout the separation process.  



3.  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)                                         AR20080010899



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080010899



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1