Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120008475
Original file (20120008475.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  6 November 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120008475 


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 that her Reentry (RE) code be changed from a “3” to a “1.”

2.  The applicant states she was wrongfully separated from the Army without due process.  She was denied reenlistment and flagged for unknown reasons.  She goes on to state that she was a first-term Soldier with less than 2 years in the Army when she tested positive during a urinalysis.  She states she received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) which was completed long before she returned from Afghanistan.  She continues by stating that while in Afghanistan her flag was lifted when her punishment was completed.  She was promoted to the pay grade of E-4, received an Army Commendation Medal at the end of her tour, and she received a coin of excellence for her service in Afghanistan.  Additionally, she states she is not a drug user.  She is a single mother of two sons and she is trying to provide for them.  She was not released under chapter 14 or 12 and she did not get into any other trouble.  She does not believe she deserves an RE code of “3.”

3.  The applicant provides copies of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), a letter from her commander in response to a congressional inquiry, a portion of her NJP proceedings, a letter from her Congressional Representative, and excerpts from Army Regulation 635-200.



CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 16 September 2008, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years and 24 weeks, training as a petroleum supply specialist, and a $20,000 enlistment bonus.  She completed her training and was transferred to Fort Carson, Colorado for assignment to the 4th Combat Support Battalion (Maneuver).

2.  On 10 July 2010, she deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom and she was attached to the 1st Brigade Combat Team, 1st Battalion, 66th Armor Regiment.  On 23 September 2010, NJP was imposed against the applicant by the battalion commander of the 1st Battalion, 66th Armor Regiment for wrongful use of cocaine.

3.  She was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 June 2011 and departed Afghanistan on 15 June 2011 for return to the 4th Combat Support Battalion, Fort Carson.

4.  The letter, dated 23 February 2012, that was written to the applicant's Congressional Representative by her commander indicates the applicant received NJP from her previous command in Afghanistan for testing positive for cocaine and when she returned from deployment the chain of command initiated separation action against her under Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 
14-12c, due to commission of a serious offense.  She was also flagged and barred from reenlistment.  He went on to state that the recommendation for discharge was approved, but suspended for 180 days, which allowed her to leave the Army honorably.  None of those administrative proceedings are contained in her official records.

5.  On 1 March 2012, the applicant was honorably released from active duty (REFRAD) due to completion of required service under the provisions of chapter 4, Army Regulation 635-200.  She was assigned a separation code of “LBK” and an RE code of “3.”

6.  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 United States 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.


7.  An RE code of 3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.  Certain persons who have received nonjudicial punishment are so disqualified, as are persons with bars to reenlistment, and those discharged under the provisions of chapters 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 16 of Army Regulation 635-200.  A waiting period of 2 years from separation is required before a waiver may be submitted through a local recruiting office.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no indication of any violations of the applicant’s rights.
 
2.  The applicant was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation        635-200, chapter 4 upon completing her required services and she was barred from reenlistment at the time she separated; therefore, she was properly assigned an RE code of RE-3 in accordance with the applicable regulations.

3. The applicant has failed to show through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that she was assigned the wrong RE code or that an error or injustice occurred in this case.  The applicant is not precluded from applying for a waiver of her RE code at a nearby recruiting office if she is otherwise qualified and the needs of the Army at the time justify her return to service; however, there is no basis to change her RE code at this time. 

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)                                         AR20120008475



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120008475



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004133

    Original file (20110004133.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    She provides: * An Enlisted Record Brief * Twenty-four DA Forms 4856 (Developmental Counseling Form) from June 2009 to March 2010 * DA Form 3355 (Promotion Point Worksheet), dated 11 November 2009 * DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (AD)) COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE: 1. Army Regulation 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program), states that prior to discharge or release from AD individuals will be assigned RE codes based on their...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2014 | AR20140002777

    Original file (AR20140002777.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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. However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. The narrative reason specified by Army Regulations for a discharge under this paragraph is "Misconduct (Serious Offense)," and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110012017

    Original file (20110012017.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The Army must find that a service member is physically unfit to reasonably perform his or her duties and assign an appropriate disability rating before he or she can be medically retired or separated. AR 635-40, paragraph 4-3, states an enlisted member may not be referred for physical disability processing when action has been started that may result in an administrative separation with a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions. Further: * LTC WAS had only seen...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130013154

    Original file (AR20130013154.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests to upgrade the characterization of his service from general, under honorable conditions to fully honorable, and to change the narrative reason for his discharge. He was discharged as a SPC/E-4. EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT: The applicant provided an affidavit in support of warrantless arrest, dated 30 September 2012; county court document indicates, on 21 March 2013, a motion to dismiss a case against the applicant was granted because no officer was available...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010693

    Original file (20100010693.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states she was eligible for promotion in November 2006 but was verbally flagged (suspension of favorable personnel actions) in December 2006 by the 160th Military Police Battalion without proper documentation. He elaborated that she was previously boarded and recommended for promotion to SGT in November 2006 but was flagged in December 2006 and remained flagged until a separation board discharged her in December 2007. Despite the lack of her promotion packet, the evidence of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090020811

    Original file (20090020811.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    A DA Form 2627 (Record of Proceedings Under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice), dated 14 December 2007, shows nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed by the battalion commander against the applicant for her wrongful use of marijuana. The applicant's company commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate action to separate her from the U.S. Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 14-12c, based on...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130003834

    Original file (AR20130003834.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    EVIDENCE OBTAINED FROM THE APPLICANT'S RECORD: DD Form 214, separation orders and a document with a copy of his ETS date taken out of the IWS. A characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such characterization. If the applicant desires a personal appearance hearing, it will be his responsibility to meet the burden of proof and provide the appropriate documents (i.e., the discharge packet) or other...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090011456

    Original file (20090011456.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    This form further confirms he completed 3 years, 4 months, and 10 days of creditable active military service during this period of enlistment. Army Regulation 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program) states that an applicant who, during his or her last period of service, was AWOL or had lost time of 30 days or more regardless of the type of separation or RE Code will be required to have a waiver for enlistment. The purpose of the separation document is to provide the...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2012 | AR20120020054

    Original file (AR20120020054.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: Ms. BOARD DATE: 17 April 2013 CASE NUMBER: AR20120020054 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the Discussion and Recommendation which follows, the Board determined that the characterization of service was too harsh based on the applicant’s length and quality of her service to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110013843

    Original file (20110013843.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 14 April 2010, the applicant was issued an administrative Memorandum of Reprimand (MOR) from her battalion commander for dereliction of her duties between 24 July 2009 and 13 January 2010. As a result of her Article 15 hearing she was found guilty of failing to submit a report to her battalion commander on or about 14 December 2009. She disputes this finding based upon the facts that: (1) the Army Regulation 15-6 investigation indicated she had been a Human Resources Clerk for over 9...