Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140002111
Original file (20140002111.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		
		BOARD DATE:	  23 September 2014

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140002111 


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 Item 27 (Reentry Code) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 18 February 2011 to show a reentry eligibility (RE) code.

2.  The applicant states that he has no RE code and he is being prevented from reenlisting in the military.  He has been informed that contacting and submitting a review through this Board is the only way to get his records changed so he may be eligible to reenlist.  He is in perfect physical/mental condition and requires a change to his RE code and possibly his separation code in order to reenlist.  He performed well and completed Basic Combat Training (BCT); Warrant Officer Candidate School (WOCS); Junior Officer Professional Development (JOPD); and Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) courses.  He does not believe he should be permanently banned from entering the military because of a singular personal issue that happened during the time he was attending flight school.

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 for the period ending 18 February 2011.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 24 August 2009, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army under the provisions of the U.S. Army Officer/Warrant Officer Enlistment Program for the purpose of attending Warrant Officer Flight Training.  He enlisted in the rank/pay grade of private first class (PFC)/E-3.
2.  Upon completion of BCT on 5 November 2009, the applicant was promoted to the rank/pay grade of sergeant (SGT)/E-5 and designated as a warrant officer candidate.

3.  On 24 February 2010, the applicant completed WOCS and was discharged from the Regular Army in the rank/pay grade of SGT/E-5 for the purpose of accepting a commission or warrant in the Army.  The DD Form 214 that he was issued at the time shows he was honorably discharged and assigned an RE code of "1."

4.  The applicant was conditionally appointed as a Reserve warrant officer in the rank/pay grade of warrant officer one (WO1)/W-1 on 25 February 2010 with concurrent call to active duty.  He accepted this appointment with the understanding that he must successfully complete technical and tactical certification by successful completion of the Warrant Officer Basic Course (WOBC) per the terms of his enlistment contract and other regulations or he would be subject to discharge under the provisions of Army Regulations.

5.  The applicant's record contains Headquarters, United States Army Aviation Center of Excellence, Fort Rucker, AL memorandum, dated 12 January 2011, subject: Involuntary Release from Active Duty (REFRAD) - WO1 (applicant's name).  In this memorandum, the Commanding General informed the applicant that:

	a.  on 19 November 2010, he was eliminated from the Initial Entry Rotary Wing (IERW) Course due to medical reasons.  On 5 November 2010, doctors from the United States Army Aeromedical Center (USAAMC) medically disqualified him from flight status and further aviation service.  This disqualification was due to a diagnosis of Unsatisfactory Aeromedical Adaptability.

	b.  his REFRAD was directed pursuant to pertinent Army regulations and his medical disqualification and elimination from the IERW course were the bases for the termination of his warrant officer appointment and his REFRAD.

	c.  he would not be considered for future aviation training.

	d.  his service would be characterized as honorable.

6.  His DD Form 214 shows he was honorably discharged in the rank/pay grade of WO1/W-1 on 18 February 2011 in accordance with Army Regulation 600-8-24 (Officer Transfers and Discharges), paragraph 2-37, by reason of "Failure to complete course of instruction."  Item 26 (Separation Code) shows his separation program designator (SPD) code as "JHF" and item 27 contains the entry "NA."

7.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (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 SPD code JHF is the appropriate code to assign to Soldiers separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 600-8-24, paragraph 2-37, by reason of "Failure to complete course of instruction."  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table does not show a corresponding RE code to be assigned to members separated under these provisions with an SPD code of JHF.

8.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) at the time established the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  Chapter 2 provides an item by item description of the DD Form 214.  Paragraph 2-4 of this regulation states that Item 27 is obtained from Army Regulation 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components (RC) Enlistment Program) which determines Regular Army and U.S. Army Reserve reentry eligibility and provides regulatory guidance on RE codes.  These codes are not applicable to officers, U.S. Military Academy (USMA) cadets who fail to graduate or enter USMA from active duty status, or to RC Soldiers being separated for other than cause.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Evidence shows the applicant was discharged while in an officer status.

2.  The governing regulation is clear in that these codes are not applicable to officers.  There is no administrative relief available to the applicant in this case. 

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)                                         AR20140002111





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140002111



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100019968

    Original file (20100019968.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states his DD Form 214 does not show the schools he attended as a warrant officer. Paragraph 2-4 (Completing the DD Form 214) provides detailed instructions and source document(s) for completing each block of the DD Form 214. It provides that in item 14 list formal in-service (full-time attendance) training courses of 40 hours or more successfully completed during the period of service covered by the DD Form 214 from the Officer Record Brief (ORB).

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003766

    Original file (20150003766.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant states: * his record should be back dated because it was not his fault his Federal recognition orders were not completed in a timely manner * he completed the Warrant Officer Career Course on 31 January 2013, and the Aviation Initial Entry Rotary Wing (IERW) Course and Basic Officer Leader Course - B (BOLC-B) on 11 September 2014 * he should be eligible for promotion in January 2015; however, because his Federal recognition orders were not completed until January 2015, his new...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150001379

    Original file (20150001379.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests: * relief from recoupment of Student Loan Repayment Program (SLRP) incentives * payment of an officer affiliation bonus (OAB) 2. He was not informed that if he failed to become qualified in his contracted critical skill his SLRP incentive would be terminated and that any payments promised by the ARNG would not be made. On 12 September 2007, the applicant clearly contracted for MOS 15T, which was authorized the SLRP incentive.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090010230

    Original file (20090010230.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 13 December 2007 he was appointed as a warrant officer one (WO1) in the Oklahoma Army National Guard (OKARNG) and believes he should have been appointed in a higher rank due to his prior training and service. A second advisory opinion notes that in order to qualify for appointment as a WO2, a candidate must meet all training requirements. Since all Army aviators must be accessed as helicopter pilots (MOS 154A) first and the applicant had no training in helicopters, he could only be...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130010650

    Original file (AR20130010650.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    This is the reason he is asking for his narrative reason for separation to be changed to “Resigning from a Course.” DISCHARGE UNDER REVIEW INFORMATION: a. However, after examining his available military record, the issues and document submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit a change to the narrative reason for separation. The DD Form 214 shows the applicant was released from active duty under the provisions of paragraph 2-37, AR 600-8-24, for...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090011464

    Original file (AR20090011464.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The AG office said no branch would take me because I was prior Navy and they cut me orders for seperation and ignored the Show Cause board results. c. Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale: After a careful review of all the applicant’s available military records during the term of service under review, the documents, and the issues submitted with the application, the analyst found no mitigating factors that would merit a change to the narrative reason for discharge on the...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120005212

    Original file (20120005212.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests payment of a $10,000 Officer Accession Bonus (OAB). c. NGB's memorandum, dated 6 February 2012, * denied the applicant's request * explained that a bonus was authorized for MOS 153A, rotary wing aviator (Aircraft Nonspecific ) but not MOS 153D (rotary wing aviator) (UH-60 (Blackhawk)) * directed that the WY incentive manager terminate the applicant's bonus without recoupment d. The applicant in a 5 March 2012 letter addressed To Whom it May Concern: * noted that he...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072511C070403

    Original file (2002072511C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the orders which terminated his service and pay as an aviator be revoked, that he be reinstated to active duty as an aviator in military occupational specialty (MOS) 153D, that he be allowed to attend the aviation refresher course and maintenance test pilot (MTP) course at Fort Rucker, Alabama, that he be awarded the Senior Aviator Badge, and that he be paid Aviation Career Incentive Pay (ACIP) for the period of 22 February 1998 to 24 November 1999. ...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110011740

    Original file (20110011740.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    He signed this document on 5 June 2009 and stated he understood if he was appointed as a Warrant Officer in the ARARNG he must successfully complete Warrant Officer MOS certification within two years of the effective date of his appointment unless extended by the Chief, NGB. MOS 153A was considered a critical skill on the date he accepted his commission, but his initial appointment orders (Orders 151-813) showed that he was appointed in MOS 153D. As a result, the Board recommends that all...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003084804C070212

    Original file (2003084804C070212.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    Although he did not complete the course, he requests that the Board consider why he was not able to do so. The applicant's officer record brief (ORB), dated 29 August 2001, shows completion of a warrant officer orientation and warrant officer entry course, both in the year 2000. Army Regulation 635-40 establishes the Army physical disability evaluation system and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures that apply in determining whether a soldier is unfit because of physical...