IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	       10 September 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090007064 


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 that her reentry eligibility (RE) code on her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be changed to a more favorable code.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that she was unfairly issued an RE code of "4."  She also states that she was not a troubled Soldier but she made a huge and stupid mistake and she desires to be issued a "fair" RE code and be allowed to serve once again.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documents with her application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army in Los Angeles, California, on 24 August 1999 for a period of 4 years and training as an automated logistics specialist.  She completed her training, served overseas tours in Iraq and Germany, and remained on active duty through a series of continuous reenlistments.

2.  On 2 October 2006, while serving in the pay grade of E-5 in Korea, charges were preferred against the applicant for three specifications of stealing currency of more than $500.00.

3.  On 10 October 2006, after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant submitted a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In her request she indicated that she understood the charges that had been preferred against her, that she was making the request of her own free will without coercion from anyone, and that she was aware of the implications attached to her request.  She also admitted that she was guilty of the charges against her or of lesser included offenses which authorized the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  Additionally, she acknowledged that she had been advised of the maximum punishment she could receive for her offense if convicted by the contemplated court-martial.   She acknowledged that she understood that she could receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and that she might be deprived of all benefits as a result of such a discharge.  She further elected not to submit a statement in her own behalf.

4.  The appropriate authority (a major general) approved her request on 30 October 2006 and directed that she be furnished an Other Than Honorable Discharge.

5.  Accordingly, she was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 24 November 2006 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  She had served 7 years, 2 months, and 28 days of total active service and was issued an RE code of "4."

6.  On 27 March 2007, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of her discharge and contended that she was a good person who made a bad mistake and that she was a victim of fraud.  After considering all of the available evidence in her case, the ADRB denied the applicant's petition to upgrade her discharge on 28 March 2008.

7.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the 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 charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A condition of submitting such a request is that the individual concerned must admit guilt to the charges against him or her or to a lesser included offense which authorizes the imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge and he or she must indicate that he or she has been briefed and understands the consequences of such a request as well as the discharge he or she might receive.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions was then and still 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 reason for discharge.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program) covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (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.

9.  RE-4 indicates that a person is not qualified for continued Army service by virtue of being separated from the service with a nonwaivable disqualification.  The applicable regulations direct that an RE code of 4 be issued for a separation code of "KFS" which indicates separation for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that she was issued the wrong RE code at the time of her separation or that the RE code is unjust.

3.  The applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial and was properly issued a separation code of "KFS" and an RE code of "4" in accordance with the applicable regulations.

4.  Accordingly, there appears to be no basis to change her RE code as she requests.

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)                                         AR20090007064



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090007064



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1