BOARD DATE:	  12 August 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100007048 


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 reconsideration of his earlier request to upgrade his general discharge to honorable.  He also requests an upgrade of his reentry code 3 (RE-3). 

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was young and immature at the time he served in the military.  He wants his discharge upgraded so that he may be eligible to enlist in the military and complete what he started or at least be able to join the Army National Guard (ARNG).  If given the opportunity he will prove he is able to finish what he started.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20090012258, on 22 December 2009.

2.  The applicant's contention that he was young and immature at the time that he served in the Army and that he wants to finish his service obligation is a new argument that requires Board consideration.  The upgrade of his RE-3 is a new issue that also requires Board consideration.

3.  The original Record of Proceedings considered the applicant's argument that he has been a responsible adult with a wife and children.  He requested a discharge upgrade so that he could further his education and be better able to support his family.  The Board determined that his record of indiscipline and punishment on three separate occasions showed that his service did not meet the standards for acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Accordingly, his request was denied. 

4.  The applicant was 17 years and 9 months of age when he enlisted in the Regular Army.  He successfully completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 15U (Helicopter Repairer).  In 2002, he attained the rank of specialist, pay grade E-4.

5.  The applicant's records show he was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for a pattern of misconduct based on three nonjudicial punishments (NJP's).  Accordingly, he was discharged on 21 October 2004 with a general characterization of service.  He was assigned a separation program designator (SPD) code of JKA and an RE code of 3.  

6.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include a pattern of misconduct.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.

7.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program) prescribes eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the Army Reserve.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment and includes a list of armed forces RE codes including RA RE codes.  An RE code of 3 applies to persons separated from their last period of service with a waivable disqualification.  This regulation further provides that RE codes may only be changed if they are determined to be administratively incorrect.

8.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) provides the specific authorities and reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. The SPD code of JKA was the appropriate code for the applicant based upon the guidance provided in Army Regulation 635-5-1 for Soldiers separating under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for a pattern of misconduct.  Additionally, the SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table establishes an RE code of 3 as the proper RE code to assign to Soldiers separated for this reason.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his general discharge should be upgraded to honorable so that he may reenter the Army or his RE code of 3 should be changed so that he may be able to enter the ARNG. 

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was in accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.  

4.  The applicant's contention that he was young and immature is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The applicant was almost 18 years of age when he enlisted.  He had satisfactorily completed training and had attained the rank of specialist.  These accomplishments demonstrate he was capable of serving.  There is no evidence that he was too immature or too young to complete his service obligation.  

5.  The RE code of 3, establishing his enlistment/reenlistment ineligibility without waiver, was correctly entered on his separation document in accordance with governing regulations.

6.  There is no apparent basis for removal or waiver of the applicant’s disqualification that established the basis for the RE code of 3.  The applicant’s desire to continue in the service to his country was noted; however, there are no provisions authorizing the change of an appropriately assigned RE code for this purpose.

7.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.  





BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___x__  ___x_____  ____x____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  In regard to his request for reconsideration, 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20090012258, dated 22 December 2009 to upgrade his general discharge to honorable.

2.  In regard to his new issue, 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)                                         AR20100007048



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)