IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  9 October 2008

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080012025 


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, a change to his reentry (RE) code.  

2.  The applicant states, in effect, his RE code should be changed based on the circumstances leading up to his separation.   

3.  The applicant provides no documentary evidence in support of his application. 

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 17 January 2007.  

2.  On 18 May 2007, while still in training, the applicant departed absent without leave (AWOL) from his organization at Fort Gordon, Georgia.  He remained away for 3 months and 10 days until returning to military control on 27 August 2007.  

3.  On 30 August 2007, a Charge Sheet (DD Form 458) was prepared preferring a court-martial charge against the applicant for being AWOL from on or about
18 May through on or about 27 August 2007.  

4.  On 30 August 2007, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the maximum punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the significance of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge, and of the possible effects of an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge.  
5.  Subsequent to receiving legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  In his discharge request, the applicant acknowledged his understanding that by submitting a request for discharge, he was admitting guilt to the charge against him, or of a lesser included offense therein contained which also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He also indicated that he understood that if his request for discharge were approved, he could receive an UOTHC discharge, which could result in his being deprived of many or all Army benefits, and render him ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).  He further acknowledged his understanding that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life because of an UOTHC discharge.  He finally elected not to submit statements in his own behalf.   

6.  On 11 October 2007, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 for the good of the service, and directed the applicant receive an UOTHC discharge, and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade if serving in a grade above private/E-1 (PV1).  On 2 November 2007, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant upon his discharge confirms he completed a total of 6 months and 7 days of active military service and that he accrued 75 days of time lost due to AWOL.  It also confirms that based on the authority and reason for his separation, he was assigned a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of KFS and an RE code of RE-4.    

7.  Army Regulation 635-200 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 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.  An UOTHC discharge normally is appropriate for a Soldier who is discharged in lieu of trial by court-martial.  

8.  Army Regulation 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the United States Army Reserve (USAR).  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 have a nonwaivable disqualification.  


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 KFS is the appropriate code to assign to Soldiers separated under the provisions of Chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by 
court-martial.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table stipulates that an RE-4 code will be assigned to members separated under these provisions with an SPD code of KFS.   

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his RE code should be changed based on the circumstances of his separation was carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.  

2.  By regulation, RE-4 is the proper code to assign to members who are assigned an SPD code of KFS and who are discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  

3.  The evidence of record also confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. The record shows that after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request for discharge, he admitted guilt to the charge against him, or of a lesser included offense, that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and that the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  It further shows that based on the authority and reason for his separation, he was appropriately assigned an SPD code of KFS and an RE code of 4.  

4.  Absent evidence to the contrary, the RE-4 code assigned was proper and equitable based on the authority and reason for her discharge, and remains valid. As a result, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support a change to the RE code.  

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
      
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)                                         AR20080012025



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080012025



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1