IN THE CASE OF:	

		BOARD DATE:	 1 December 2009 

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090010347 


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, amendment of his separation and reentry (RE) codes for the purpose of reenlistment.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his separation and RE codes are in error because he was not told why he was being barred from reenlistment.  He is trying to get into the Army Reserve.  

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

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 records show he enlisted in the Regular Army in pay grade E-1 on 22 October 1979.  He completed basic and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 64C, Motor Transport Operator.  He reenlisted on 4 October 1982.  He was promoted to pay grade E-4 on 1 April 1984.

3.  On 19 November 1984, the applicant's unit commander initiated a locally imposed Bar to Reenlistment.  The unit commander stated that the applicant did not meet the Army’s Weight Standards in accordance with Army Regulation 600-9 (The Army Weight Control Program).  The unit commander also stated that the applicant had not responded to counseling or remedial physical training.  On the same date, the applicant acknowledged the proposed action and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  He requested to be immediately discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 16-15b, as he felt that he would not be able to overcome the conditions that had resulted in his bar from further reenlistment.  The Bar to Reenlistment was approved on 20 November 1984.

4.  On 19 April 1985, the applicant’s unit commander endorsed the applicant’s request for separation.  The unit commander stated that he did not think it was feasible or appropriate to accomplish other dispositions of the case because the applicant had no desire to continue to Solider and in light of the bar to reenlistment desired to return to civilian life as soon as possible.

5.  The applicant was honorably discharged in pay grade E-4 on 13 May 1985, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5b, by reason of a Locally Imposed Bar to Reenlistment.  He was credited with 5 years, 6 months, and 22 days net active service.  He was assigned a separation code of KGF and RE Code 4.

6.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5b, in effect at the time, specified that a Soldier denied reenlistment could be voluntarily separated before the expiration of his/her term of service due to a locally imposed bar to reenlistment.  Soldiers who perceived that they would be unable to overcome a local bar to reenlistment would be discharged upon their request.  The service of Soldiers separated under that paragraph would be characterized as honorable.

7.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD Codes)), in effect at the time, prescribed the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the SPDs to be used for these stated reasons.  The regulation 

showed that the SPD for "KGF," as shown on the applicant’s DD Form 214, was appropriate for voluntary discharge when the narrative reason for discharge was "Locally Imposed Bar to Reenlistment" and that the authority for discharge under that SPD was Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5b.  The SPD code of “KGF” had a corresponding RE Code of “4.”  The regulation also specified that an RE Code of RE-3 would be applied when there was a locally imposed bar to reenlistment and the Soldier had less than 18 years active service. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was discharged on 13 May 1985 as a result of a locally imposed bard to reenlistment, with less than 18 years active service.  He was issued a Separation Code of "KGF" that has a corresponding RE Code of "4."  However, in accordance with regulatory guidance in effect at the time, he should have been assigned an RE-3.  Therefore, it would now be appropriate to change item 27 of his DD Form 214 to show a reentry code of "3."

2.  The applicant also contends that his separation code is erroneous and should be amended.  However, the evidence shows he was locally barred from reenlistment for not meeting the Army’s Weight Standards.  The bar to reenlistment was initiated on 19 November 1984 and at the time the applicant requested to be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 16-5b.  The bar to reenlistment was approved on 20 November 1984 and he was discharged on 13 May 1985.

3.  The evidence also shows the applicant’s bar to reenlistment was imposed and his separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. Pertinent regulation shows that the SPD code "KGF" as shown on the applicant’s DD Form 214 is appropriate for the type of discharge received.  

4.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

____X___  ___X___  ____X___  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION
BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing an RE Code of "3" in item 27 of the applicant’s DD Form 214, dated 13 May 1985.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to amending the separation code found in Item 26 of his DD Form 214, dated 13 May 1985.




      _______ _  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)                                         AR20090010347





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090010347



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1