Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018474
Original file (20090018474.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  4 May 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090018474 


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 change of his reentry eligibility (RE) code and deletion of the time lost entries concerning him being absent without leave (AWOL) from his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty).

2.  The applicant states when he missed his flight he went to Fort Benjamin Harrison, IN and reported to the military police.  They contacted his unit.  He adds that it is an injustice that his RE code is preventing him from maybe joining the National Guard or the Regular Army (RA).

3.  The applicant does not provide any additional documents.

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 that he enlisted in the RA on
15 November 1976 and was awarded military occupational specialty 13B (cannon crewmember).

3.  The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for being AWOL from 20 August to
3 September 1977, disobeying a lawful order from a commissioned officer on 
9 September 1977, absenting himself from his place of duty on 14 September 1977, and failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on
25 and 26 April 1978.

4.  On 4 August 1978, the applicant’s commander notified him of his intent to recommend his discharge under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP) due to his:

* inability to emotionally adjust to military life
* frequent childish behavior
* inability to perform under any pressure whatsoever
* immaturity
* disrespect for authority

5.  The applicant consented to be discharged under the EDP.

6.  The commander’s recommendation was approved by the appropriate authority.  Accordingly, on 5 September 1978 the applicant was honorably discharged.  The DD Form 214 he was issued shows that he was assigned an RE-3B and he had 12 days time lost from 21 August through 1 September 1977.

7.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program), in effect at the time, stated that RE-3B was assigned to individuals who had time lost during their last period of service.  Soldiers assigned an RE-3B are ineligible for enlistment unless a waiver is granted.

8.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, stated that time lost was to be entered in Item 27 (Remarks) of a DD Form 214.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant accepted NJP for being AWOL from 21 August through 1 September 1977.  Therefore, it must be presumed that the applicant’s explanation of his absence was not accepted by his commander.

2.  It would be inappropriate to second-guess the chain of command’s judgment at this late date.  The applicant’s commander had current information and could talk to the applicant in person concerning his absence.  If the applicant had missed a flight and had immediately gone to a military installation to report his status he should have presented those mitigating factors when he was offered NJP; not 32 years later.

3.  Since the applicant had time lost, it was properly recorded on his DD Form 214 and he was properly assigned an RE-3B.

4.  While it is commendable that the applicant considers reentering military service, the assignment of an RE-3B is not an injustice given his time lost.

5.  The ABCMR does not correct records solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for other programs or benefits.  The applicant is advised that if he desires to reenter military service, he should contact a local recruiter who can best advise him on his eligibility for returning to military service.  Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the service at the time and are responsible for processing RE code waivers.

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)                                         AR20090018474



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090018474



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110024898

    Original file (20110024898.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Subsequent to this acknowledgement, the applicant’s immediate commander recommended the applicant be discharged with a General Discharge Certificate. Army Regulation 140-158 (Enlisted Personnel Classification, Promotion, and Reduction), in effect at the time, provided for promotion of Soldiers in the IRR. There is no evidence of record and he provides none to show he held a higher rank/grade between the date his suspended reduction was vacated and the date of his REFRAD.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130013341

    Original file (20130013341.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. There is no evidence in the available record to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations. However, the evidence of record does not support his contentions and given the circumstances that are documented in the case, his service does not rise to the level of a fully honorable discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019740

    Original file (20100019740.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 10 February 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100019740 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Paragraph 27 provided that the DD Form 214 would be coded "RE-3," for all individuals, except those with over 18 years of active service, discharged under this regulation, so as to preclude reentry into the Army, unless authorized by appropriate authority. Army Regulations, in effect at the time, dictated that reenlistment code "RE-3" be assigned to Soldiers discharged...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070005167C071029

    Original file (20070005167C071029.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 29 March 1979, the separation authority approved the applicant’s separation under the provisions of the EDP, and directed the applicant receive a GD. The separation document (DD Form 214) he was issued shows he was separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-31, Army Regulation 635-200 (EDP) after completing 1 year, 5 months and 9 days of active military service, and accruing 10 days of time lost due to AWOL. The evidence of record confirms the applicant's separation processing under...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009337

    Original file (20090009337.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he was discharged on 14 August 1979 in accordance with the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31 (EDP), for failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention, and his service was characterized as under honorable conditions. There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. Considering that the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140005127

    Original file (20140005127.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant's unit commander notified him of his proposed discharge action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13 for misconduct. His service record does not indicate he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. His service record shows he received three Article 15s for being absent from his unit, being AWOL for 17 days, and for failing to go at...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001930

    Original file (20140001930.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    No action was taken by the separation authority regarding the applicant's separation. On 28 February 1978, his immediate commander advised him that he intended to initiate action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of paragraph 5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)) of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of having an indifferent attitude toward the military, failing to meet and maintain acceptable standards, lack of discipline, and incidents of misconduct. On 7 December...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017212

    Original file (20110017212.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his general discharge under honorable conditions for the period ending 22 October 1979 be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge. On 4 October 1979, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the service due to his failure to maintain acceptable standards for retention under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), paragraph 5-31, and the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP). There is no...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026883

    Original file (20100026883.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    As a result, the applicant's military service records should be corrected to show he was honorably discharged effective 24 September 1971 under the extraordinary provisions of the Department of the Army memorandum, dated 8 February 1978. The applicant received an RE code of 4 based upon his discharge for unsuitability, character and behavior disorder; however, the regulatory guidance states the reenlistment code "RE-3" will be assigned to Soldiers discharged under the provision of Army...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130016350

    Original file (20130016350.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 9 November 1978, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-31 (Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)), with a general discharge. Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, provides that those Soldiers processed under the EDP may be released from active duty and transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve to complete their military...