IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  14 June 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110001965 


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 an upgrade of her general discharge under honorable conditions to honorable, a change to her reentry eligibility (RE) code, a change to her narrative reason for separation, and an unspecified change to the remarks entries.

2.  The applicant states she believes her [discharge] was unjust because a sergeant first class and other influential noncommissioned officers used their power and persuasion to negatively cause unauthorized absences and some suicides.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored letter stating reasons for her request for an upgrade.  The applicant believes that her discharge should be upgraded because it would:

* allow her the opportunity to correct her mistake
* provide her the opportunity to reenter the Army
* provide her the opportunity to continue to contribute to society as an honorable citizen

4.  The applicant also provides:

* two character reference letters
* a copy of a telephone interview with her previous attorney and an advanced individual training (AIT) Soldier
* 
an affidavit from the applicant conducted by her attorney
* photographs from her family
* a copy of a letter from a professional counselor addressing her stress and anxiety in 2008
* a copy of her barber's license

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 August 2006.  She completed basic training; however, she did not complete AIT.  The highest rank/grade she attained was private first class/E-3.

2.  The applicant's records indicate she was reported as being absent without leave (AWOL) on or about 26 February 2007.  She was apprehended by civilian authorities on or about 23 August 2007.

3.  On 6 September 2007, court-martial charges were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL from on or about 26 February 2007 to on or about 23 August 2007.

4.  The applicant's record is void of a separation packet containing the specific facts and circumstances surrounding her discharge processing.  The record does contain a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) which shows she was discharged on 2 November 2007 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Active Duty Enlisted Administrative Separations), chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial with issuance of an under other than honorable conditions discharge.  It further shows she completed 9 months and 2 days of total active service with 179 days of lost time due to being AWOL.  It also shows in:

* item 26 (Separation Code) – "KFS"
* item 27 (Reentry Code) – "4"
* item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) – "in lieu of trial by court-martial"
* item 29 (Dates of Time Lost During This Period) – "20070226-20070823" [26 February-23 August 2007]

5.  On 15 June 2009, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) upgraded the applicant's discharge to general under honorable conditions.  The ADRB elected not to change the applicant's separation code, reentry code, or narrative reason for separation.

6.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 provides that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.  Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

7.  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.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 further states 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 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program), in effect at the time, covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the RA, U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard.

	a.  RE-1 applies to Soldiers completing their term of active service who are considered qualified to reenter the U.S. Army.  They are qualified for enlistment if all other criteria are met.

	b.  RE-3 applies to Soldiers who are not considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at time of separation, but disqualification is waivable.  They are ineligible for enlistment unless a waiver is granted.

	c.  RE-4 applies to Soldiers who are separated from their last period of service with a nonwaivable disqualification.  They are ineligible for enlistment.

9.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. It states that the SPD code KFS is the appropriate code to assign to Soldiers separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table in effect at the time stipulated that an RE-3 code would be assigned to members separated under these provisions with an SPD code of KFS.  Currently, Soldiers with an SPD of KFS are assigned an RE-4 code.
10.  Army Regulation 15-185 (Army Board for Correction of Military Records) prescribes the policies and procedures for correction of military records by the Secretary of the Army acting through the ABCMR.  The regulation provides that the ABCMR begins its consideration of each case with the presumption of administrative regularity.  The applicant has the burden of proving an error or injustice by a preponderance of the evidence.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that her discharge should be upgraded to fully honorable because she believes that she was treated negatively by her superiors was carefully considered and found to be insufficient in evidence.  There is no evidence in her available military record and although she submitted documents in support of her request, there was not enough significant evidence to support granting the requested relief.  The applicant's contentions regarding her post-service achievements and conduct were considered.  However, good post-service conduct alone is not a basis for upgrading a discharge.

2.  The applicant's separation authority and separation code on her DD Form 214 shows she was assigned a corresponding narrative reason for separation for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Based on the governing regulation, this was the only narrative reason for separation as a result of her voluntary request for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, chapter 10.  Therefore, there is no basis for changing her narrative reason for separation or changing entries in item 18 of her DD Form 214.

3.  The RE code 4 assigned to the applicant was the proper code to assign to members separating under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the Uniform Code of Military Justice with a punitive discharge.  As a result, the RE code 4 was and still is appropriate.

4.  The applicant's discharge was upgraded to a general discharge on 16 June 2009 by the ADRB.  Further relief is not warranted.

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)                                         AR20110001965



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110001965



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1