IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  2 April 2015

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20140014291 


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, in effect, the correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) by amending:

* item 19a (Mailing Address after Separation) to show his current address
* item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) to show a reason more consistent with an honorable discharge
* item 27 (Reentry Code (RE)), changing it to "RE-1"

2.  The applicant states, in effect, his discharge was upgraded in 1990 to honorable by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) but, for reasons that are unclear to him, his narrative reason and RE code were not adjusted so as to be consistent with his upgrade.  Additionally, he has lived at his current address for the past 31 years after being discharged and requests this be reflected on his DD Form 214.

3.  The applicant provides:

* self-authored statement
* two DD Forms 214
* DD Form 215 (Correction to DD Form 214) for his DD Form 214 addressing a period of active duty ending on 30 September 1992 (after the discharge in question)
* Army Council of Review Boards Case Report and Directive, dated 17 January 1990, Case Number AD88-02329
* 35 pages extracted from medical records
* photocopies of two DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) (one of which is missing the last page showing items 27 through 34)
* award certificate from The Adjutant General of Texas for meritorious achievement and outstanding service, dated 22 May 1991 
* Navy Personnel (NAVPERS) Form 1616/24 (Enlisted Performance Evaluation Report), dated 14 January 1993
* five honorable discharge certificates addressing periods of service between 1983 and 1998
* four letters of support
* letter of course completion for Instructor Basic Course, dated 24 July 1992, Department of the Navy, Naval Air Station
* Department of the Navy certificate of completion, dated 26 February 1993, for successful completion of an emergency vehicle operator's instructor's course
* letter of commendation

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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 25 April 1980.  Upon completion of one-station unit training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 19D (Cavalry Scout).  The highest rank/grade held was sergeant/E-5.  After an almost 2 year assignment to Fort Hood, TX, he was reassigned to Germany, where he remained until he was separated.

3.  On 12 April 1983, the applicant's unit commander initiated a bar to reenlistment action, stating the the applicant:

* had not displayed technical ability, leadership, or the desire to change his behavior
* had lapses as a Cavalry Scout squad leader
* was personally observed by the commander during a live fire exercise in which the applicant failed to take charge of his squad; his reaction to 
after-action recommendations was negative and lackadaisical
* was on the overweight program since his arrival at the unit
* spoke to the commander and told him he had no desire to improve his leadership or technical skills; he wished to leave the Army

4.  On 18 April 1983, the bar to reenlistment was approved.

5.  On 18 April 1983, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to pursue separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Separations), chapter 13 (Separation for Unsatisfactory Performance).  He cited as his basis for this action the applicant's consistent show of apathy.  He informed the applicant of his rights in this process.

6.  On 18 April 1983, the applicant was afforded the opportunity and declined to consult with legal counsel.  He waived his right to have his case considered by a board of officers and chose not to submit statements in his own behalf.  He acknowledged he understood he could encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions was issued.  

7.  On or about 20 April 1983, the separation approval authority approved the unit commander's recommendation and directed the applicant be given a general under honorable conditions discharge.  On 18 May 1983, he was discharged accordingly.

8.  His DD Form 214 was later corrected by the ADRB to show an honorable discharge, but on the original version it showed he received a general discharge under honorable conditions.  In both versions of the DD Form 214, the separation authority is chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200 and the narrative reason is unsatisfactory performance.  The separation code (SPD) is "JHJ."  The RE code is shown as RE-3.  The DD Form 214 further shows he completed 3 years and 24 days of net active creditable service.  He was awarded or authorized:

* Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon with
Numeral 1
* Army Service Ribbon
* Sharpshooter Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar

9.  Applicant provides:

	a.  A self-authored statement in which he states, in effect:
* he entered the Army in 1980 and, while stationed in Germany he injured his leg; he was not able to do physical training and could only perform limited duty
* his commander told him he could keep his rank of sergeant if he accepted separation action under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200
* if the applicant chose to stay and "fight the system," the commander threatened rank reduction using nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
* the commander also said, if the applicant's leg did not get better within 2 or 3 months, he (the commander) would pursue separation action anyway
* should the applicant attempt to seek legal counsel, the commander said he would give him NJP right then
* the applicant did not want NJP, so he accepted the separation action; he also hoped he could reenter the military once his leg was rehabilitated
* in 1985, he attempted to reenter military service and requested a waiver
* in 1991, he applied to the ADRB and his discharge was upgraded to honorable; he asked for the narrative reason to be changed but this did not happen
* having an honorable discharge is not consistent with a narrative reason of unsatisfactory performance on the DD Form 214, and this fact warrants the Board's review
* he has spoken to several legal professionals and all support his contention
* he therefore asserts his claim is valid and requests the Board replace the narrative reason for separation with some other entry more consistent with an honorable discharge
* he pointed out he went on to serve in the military reserve until 1998 and earned five honorable discharges
* he has received many letters of commendation and was awarded a Meritorious Service Ribbon
* he has given much to his country and did not deserve the treatment he received in 1983
* although he is now too old to reenter the military, he still requests the RE code be changed from RE-3 to RE-1

	b.  Medical records which, among other entries, show his leg injury in 1983.

	c.  NAVPERS Form 1616/24, dated 14 January 1993, showing a high rating in categories that include leadership, professional factors, and personal traits.
	d.  Four letters of support from Soldiers who knew him after his discharge in 1983 and while he was in the Reserve Component.  The letters essentially state the applicant demonstrated a willingness to learn, sought responsibility, showed proper military appearance and bearing, and performed his duties well.

	e.  A letter of commendation, dated 24 July 1980, congratulating the applicant on his selection as a member of the Colonel's List for mastering basic and advanced reconnaissance skills.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  A member may be separated under chapter 13 when it is determined he/she is unqualified for further military service because of unsatisfactory performance.  Service can be characterized as either honorable or under honorable conditions.  Criteria include:
   
* when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently to participate satisfactorily in further training, or become a satisfactory Soldier
* the ability of the member to perform duties effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely
* the member meets retention medical standards under Army Regulation 40-501 (Standards of Medical Fitness)

11.  Army Regulation 635-5, in effect at the time, prescribes policy and procedures for the completion of the DD Form 214.  Regarding the entry in 19a for mailing address, it states the mailing address furnished by the Soldier at the time of separation (emphasis added) will be entered.

12.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program) covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army, U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard.  Table 3-1 includes a list of the Regular Army RE codes:

* 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

* 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 unless a waiver is granted

13.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table provides instructions for determining the RE code for Active Army Soldiers and Reserve Component Soldiers.  This cross reference table shows the SPD code and a corresponding RE code.  The SPD code of "JHJ" has a corresponding RE code of 3.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Based upon his request, the ADRB upgraded his characterization of service and discharge type from general under honorable conditions to an honorable discharge.  It did not, however, elect to modify the narrative reason for separation or change the RE code.  The applicant contends both the narrative reason for separation and the RE code are inconsistent with an honorable discharge and requests both be changed (the narrative reason to an entry which better complements the honorable discharge and the reentry code to RE-1).

2.  The evidence of record shows his separation action was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations and there is no indication of procedural errors that would have jeopardized his rights.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with applicable law and regulations at the time.  Additional factors merit consideration:

	a.  During the processing of his separation action, he chose not to have his case reviewed by a board of officers, and waived his rights to meet with legal counsel and present statements in his own behalf.  His self-authored statement suggests this was both because he felt coerced by his commander and was led to believe he would receive an honorable discharge.  Apart from his statement, however, he provides no evidence to support his allegations.

	b.  In addition to his separation action, a bar to reenlistment was initiated by his unit commander and detailed the applicant's performance issues, a demonstrated lack of skills commensurate with his rank, and the fact he was overweight.

	c.  The applicant provides documentation showing honorable service in the Reserve Component for the Army and the Navy following his discharge.  While his achievements are noteworthy, the issues he addresses relate solely to his service for the period ending 18 May 1983.  The Board's findings as to narrative reason and RE code would therefore be based upon his performance during the period ending 18 May 1983 alone.

	d.  Given the fact he failed to meet regulatory standards for his weight, along with the leadership deficiencies and the duty performance issues identified in the separation action and the bar to reenlistment, the narrative reason for discharge appropriately states the reason for his separation.  The RE code entered on his DD Form 214 is proper based upon the guidance provided in SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table.  Changes to either the narrative reason for separation or the RE code would therefore not be justified based upon the evidence of record and that presented by the applicant.

3.  As to the applicant's request to change the address shown in item 19a of his DD Form 214, for historical purposes, the Army has an interest in maintaining the accuracy of its records.  The data and information contained in those records should reflect the conditions and circumstances that existed at the time the records were created.  In the absence of a showing of material error or injustice, there is a reluctance to recommend that those records be changed.  While it is understandable the applicant desires to now record his current address in his military records, there is not a sufficiently compelling reason for compromising the integrity of the Army’s records at this late date.

4.  Based upon the foregoing, there is not sufficient basis upon which to grant the relief requested.

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)                                         AR20140014291



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20140014291



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1