DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090003252 


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 the Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) code on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be changed from “4” to one that supports reentry into the Army.

2.  The applicant states that he received an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge and based on his discharge, many doors have been closed to him as a civilian.  The applicant offers that he was 17 years of age when he enlisted in the Army and age 17 when he was discharged.  He adds that he made a very big mistake and would like the opportunity to right the wrong he has done to his country and to himself.  The applicant offers that he is ashamed of his discharge and would like a chance to serve honorably.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement in support of his appeal.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 8 June 1999 at age 17.  On 22 October 1999, charges were preferred against him for being absent without leave (AWOL) from his unit from 2 September 1999 to 
20 October 1999. 

2.  On 28 October 1999, the applicant consulted with counsel and requested a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200.

3.  The applicant signed his request for discharge and acknowledged that he was making the request under his own free will; that he was afforded the opportunity to speak with counsel; that he may be furnished a UOTHC discharge; that he may be deprived of many or all Army benefits; that he may be ineligible for many or all Department of Veterans Affairs benefits; and that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life due to the issuance of a UOTHC discharge.  He stated that under no circumstances did he desire further rehabilitation for he had no desire to perform further military service.  The applicant elected not to submit a statement on his behalf.

4.  The captain in command of A Battery, Personnel and Support Battalion, U. S. Army Field Artillery Center and Fort Sill, Fort Sill Oklahoma, recommended approval of the applicant’s request for discharge for the good of the service and that he be issued a UOTHC discharge. 

5.  On 3 March 2000, the lieutenant colonel in command of the Personnel and Support Battalion, U. S. Army Field Artillery Center and Fort Sill, Fort Sill Oklahoma, approved the applicant’s request for discharge in lieu of court-martial with the issuance of an UOTHC discharge.

6.  The applicant’s DD Form 214 shows that, at age 17, on 22 March 2000, he was separated with a UOTHC discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial, under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200.  He had completed a total of 7 months and 26 days of active military service and he had 49 days of lost time.
Item 26 shows he was assigned a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of "KFS" and item 27 shows his RE code as "4."  

7.  On 20 September 2006, the applicant appealed to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to upgrade his discharge and change his RE code.  On 
26 October 2007, the ADRB denied the applicant's appeal, stating that the board determined he was properly and equitably discharged.  

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Administrative 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 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.  A UOTHC discharge is normally considered appropriate.

9.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program) covers eligibility criteria, policies and procedures for enlistment and processing into the RA and the U.S. 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-1 permits immediate reenlistment if all other criteria are met.  RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.  An RE code of “4” indicates separation from the last period of service with a disqualification which cannot be waived and ineligibility for reenlistment.

10.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 prescribes the specific authorities, reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.  This regulation states, in pertinent part, that SPD code "KFS" applies to persons discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  

11.  The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table states that when the SPD is "KFS" then RE-4 will be given.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that his RE code should be changed based on his age and level of maturity was carefully considered.  There is no evidence that indicates he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military obligation.  By regulation, the SPD code of KFS and an RE code of “4” will be assigned to members who are discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  

2.  The applicant committed the offense of AWOL for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge.  He requested and received a discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  His voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, tends to show the applicant wished to avoid trial by court-martial, the Federal conviction, and the punitive discharge that he may have received.

3.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the applicant’s rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

4.  Absent any evidence of error or injustice in the discharge process, the RE code assigned was proper and equitable based on the authority and reason for discharge, and it 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)                                         AR20090003252



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090003252



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1