IN THE CASE OF:	 


		BOARD DATE:	  30 September 2008

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080011853 


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 eligibility (RE) code of RE-4 be upgraded to RE-3. 

2.  The applicant states she would like for her RE-4 to be upgraded so that she may join the Oklahoma Army National Guard.  She has grown as a responsible person and adult since her discharge.  She believes if the RE-4 is lifted she would be able to serve her country with all her heart and soul.  She states she was a good Soldier on her way to becoming what she believed to be the best.  She is not running away from what she did, but hopes she would be given a chance to prove herself.

3.  The applicant provides a letter with four character statements and a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States).

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 military personnel record shows she enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 September 2000.  She completed the necessary training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 75H (Personnel Services Specialist).

3.  The applicant's discharge packet was not included in her records.  However, she was discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), Chapter 10, on 28 February 2003.  She was assigned a separation program designator code (SPD) code of KFS and an RE code of RE-4.  According to her DD Form 214, she had completed a total of 2 years, 5 months, and 25 days of Net Active Service This period.

4.  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.

5.  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.

6.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designated Codes), Table 2-3, states that the SPD code KFS denote discharge for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial. 

7.  The Army Human Resources Command publishes a cross-reference table of SPD and RE codes.  This cross-reference table shows that an SPD code of KFS is assigned an RE code of RE-4.

8.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 
14 February 2006.  On 22 December 2006, ADRB reviewed the applicant's record and determined that her discharge was proper and equitable and denied her request.



9.  The applicant describes in her letter that she had made a foolish mistake and has accepted her responsibility and learned the errors of her ways and she is ready to serve her country.  She admitted to her part in the grave infraction against the Army and concedes that her punishment could have been worse.  She believed if she had not followed other people she would still be serving in the Army.  She has spent the past few years supporting her fellow Soldiers and encouraging family members to join the Armed Forces in order to protect our country and its ideals.

10.  The four character statements provided by the applicant describe the applicant as having a high degree of integrity, responsibility, ambition, and a dependable team player.  She is a role model because she has always been able to learn from her mistakes and move on to help others from making the same mistakes.  She is organized, efficient, extremely competent, and has excellent rapport with people of all ages. She understands what it takes to be a good Soldier and she knows what she is doing is for the greater good.  She is now a mature woman, dedicated and capable of handling any situation with thoughtfulness and maturity.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that her RE-4 should be upgraded so that she may join the Oklahoma Army National Guard.

2.  There is no evidence or indication that there was an error or injustice, which caused the applicant to be discharged, nor has the applicant contended that there was an error or injustice in her discharge process.

3.  Since the applicant was properly discharged and appropriately assigned an SPD code of KFS and the corresponding RE code of RE-4, there is no reason to change the correctly assigned codes.  

4.  The applicant's letter and character statements were considered; however, they were not sufficiently mitigating to change her RE code.

5.  The ABCMR does not correct records solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility to enlist into the Army National Guard.

6.  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.  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient 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)                                         AR20080011853



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080011853



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1