BOARD DATE:	  13 April 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100023128 


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 items 27 (Reenlistment (RE) Code) and 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be corrected.

2.  The applicant states:

* Item 27 of his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show "RE2 Convenience of the Government"
* Item 28 of his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show "Convenience of the Government"
* The Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) issued him a general discharge
* In the interest of justice, the errors have created a hardship for him and his ability to gain employment  

3.  The applicant provides:

* Letter, dated 4 August 2010, from the Veterans Assistance Commission in Waukegan, IL
* Letter, dated 23 November 1981, from the Office of the Adjutant General and the Adjutant General Center
* DD Form 214
* DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214)


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.  On 22 April 1974, he enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 76Y (Unit Organizational Supply Specialist). 

3.  On 2 July 1976, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for possessing marijuana.

4.  On 5 October 1976, a bar to reenlistment was imposed against him.

5.  The facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant's discharge are not contained in the available records.  His request for discharge is also not in the available records.  

6.  On 2 August 1977, the separation authority approved the applicant's request for discharge and directed that he be furnished a discharge under other than honorable conditions.

7.  He was discharged under other than honorable conditions on 29 August 1977 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu of court-martial.  He had served a total of 3 years, 4 months, and 8 days of active service.  Item 9c (Authority and Reason) of his DD Form 214 shows the entry, "AR [Army Regulation] 635-200 CHAP [Chapter] 10 SPD [Separation Program Designator] JFS."       

8.  On 23 July 1979, the ADRB denied his request for a discharge upgrade.

9.  On 8 October 1981, the ADRB upgraded his discharge under other than honorable conditions to a general discharge. 

10.  He was issued a new DD Form 214 reflecting his general discharge.  Item 25 (Separation Authority) contains the entry "CHAP 10 AR 635-200."  Item 26 (Separation Code) contains the entry "JFS."  Item 27 contains the entry "RE-3."  Item 28 of this DD Form 214 contains the entry "ADMINISTRATIVE DISCHARGE - CONDUCT TRIABLE BY COURT MARTIAL." 

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of the version in effect in 1974 provided that a member who committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge, could submit a request for discharge for the good of the service at any time after court-martial charges were preferred.  Commanders would ensure that an individual was not coerced into submitting a request for discharge for the good of the service.  Consulting counsel would advise the member concerning the elements of the offense or offenses charged, type of discharge normally given under the provisions of this chapter, the loss of Veterans Administration benefits, and the possibility of prejudice in civilian life because of the characterization of such a discharge.  An Undesirable Discharge Certificate would normally have been furnished an individual who was discharged for the good of the service at the time the applicant was discharged.

12.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator Codes) prescribes 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, in effect at the time, states the reason for discharge based on separation code “JFS” is “Administrative discharge – conduct triable by court-martial” and the regulatory authority is Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.

13.  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 the reason for discharge.  Army Regulation 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment 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.

* RE-3 applies to persons who are not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at the time of separation, but the disqualification is waivable

* RE-2 applied to persons fully qualified for enlistment who were separated before completing a contracted period of service and whose reenlistment was not contemplated
14.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table, in effect at the time, shows that Soldiers assigned a separation code of "JFS" would be assigned an RE-3.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  He contends items 27 and 28 of his new DD Form 214 should be corrected since the ADRB issued him a general discharge.  

2.  He has not submitted any evidence that would warrant a changing his RE code or narrative reason separation.  His RE code and narrative reason for separation were administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations at the time he was separated.  

3.  He contends the errors have created a hardship on him and his ability to gain employment.  However, an RE code and narrative reason for separation are not changed for the purpose of enhancing employment opportunities.

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)                                         AR20100023128



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100023128



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1