IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  28 July 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100030503 


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 correction of his reentry eligibility (RE) code from RE-4 to RE-1.

2.  The applicant states he believes the current entry to be an error.  The RE-4 was unjustified because he never had any discipline action or lost time.  Further, he was honorably discharged in the rank and pay grade of sergeant/E-5.  He needs his record corrected to allow him to enlist in an Ohio Reserve Component and qualify him for future Department of Veterans Affairs benefits.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents through his Congressional representative:

* DD Form 47 (Record of Induction), dated 10 January 1967
* DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge), effective 7 March 1969
* U.S. Army Reserve Components Personnel and Administration Center Letter Orders Number 07-1181393, dated 18 July 1973
* Ohio Attorney General Authentication Number BMT0000137089, dated 19 January 2011, reporting no criminal record history
* Privacy Act Release Form for his Congressional representative

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 was inducted into the Army of the United States on 3 August 1967.  He held military occupational specialty 91B (Medical Specialist).

3.  He was honorably discharged on 7 March 1969 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 5, as an overseas returnee (separation program number 411).  He was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Annual Training).

4.  His DD Form 214 shows he completed 1 year, 7 months, and 5 days of creditable active military service.  It further shows in:

* item 15 (Reenlistment Code) – "RE 4"
* item 16 (Remarks) – "paragraph 10, Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program) applies"

5.  In a letter addressed to the ABCMR, dated 23 June 2011, the applicant's Congressman states that through research it was discovered the RE-4 was not a clerical error, but was directly related to the applicant's previous declaration of being a conscientious objector.  The applicant was a member of the National Fellowship of Grace Brethren Churches and during the years he was deployed to Korea, the Church held strong beliefs against bearing arms against their neighbor.  However, the applicant did serve his country faithfully as a medical specialist during this time, receiving an honorable discharge.  Since that time, the Church has changed its position and now allows members to serve in the military with a free conscience.  Further, the applicant swore an affidavit stating he no longer has convictions that preclude him from bearing arms and participating in full military service.

6.  The record does not contain evidence showing the applicant was a conscientious objector.

7.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) states the DD Form 214 is a synopsis of the Soldier's most recent period of continuous active duty.  It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of release from active duty, retirement, or discharge.  It is important that information entered on the form should be complete and accurate.

8.  Army Regulation 635-5, in effect at the time, stated Army Regulation 601-210 would be cited when separation was for other than immediate reenlistment.  It included a list of RE codes in which RE-1 applied to persons fully eligible for immediate reenlistment and RE-4 applied to persons not eligible for reenlistment.  It further stated all DD Forms 214 coded with RE-4 must cite the appropriate authority for separation and list nonwaivable qualifications found in Army Regulation 601-210 in Remarks.

9.  Army Regulation 601-210, in effect at the time, stated that conscientious objectors were ineligible to enlist or reenlist.  No waivers were granted.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requests his RE code be corrected to show he received an 
RE-1 indicating he is fully qualified for enlistment in an Ohio Reserve Component and future Department of Veterans Affairs benefits.

2.  The available evidence shows the applicant received an honorable discharge on 7 March 1969 and was transferred to the U.S. Army Reserve Control Group (Annual Training).  The reason and authority cited was his status as an overseas returnee in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5.  His DD Form 214 shows he was issued an RE code of "RE-4" which made him ineligible to enlist/reenlist.  In addition, the remarks section of his DD Form 214 cites paragraph 10 of Army Regulation 601-210 which lists the classes of Soldiers ineligible to enlist/reenlist and for which no waivers were granted.  However, the applicant's record does not contain any derogatory information that would make him ineligible to reenlist.

3.  The applicant, by his own admission to his Congressman, was a conscientious objector during his period of service and swore an affidavit before his Congressman stating he no longer had any objection to bearing arms.  Together, his admission and the entry in the remarks section support the probability that he would not have been allowed to enlist/reenlist because of his conscientious objector status.

4.  Therefore, a preponderance of the evidence shows the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time.

5.  In view of the above, his request should be denied.

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 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)                                         AR20100030503



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100030503



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1