BOARD DATE: 28 January 2015

CASE NUMBER: AR20140003201

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 the discharge was both proper and equitable and voted to deny relief.

Presiding Officer

I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Department of the Army Discharge Review Board in this case.


1. The applicant requests a change to her reentry code. The applicant did not properly annotate the enclosed application requesting a possible discharge upgrade. However, the Army Discharge Review Board considered the applicant for a possible upgrade as instructed in pertinent part by Department of Defense Instruction 1332.28 which stipulates that a request for review from an applicant without an honorable discharge shall be treated as a request for a change to an honorable discharge unless the applicant requests a specific change to another character of discharge.

2. The applicant states, in effect, her DD 214 shows her net active service as 5 months and 1 day, which is in error. She states, she was given a DD Form 214 and considered a prior service member. She contends she was young and nave and did not realize her decision would impact the rest of her life. She desires to pursue a career in law enforcement, as well as, reenlist in the military. She states, in 2005 she never boarded her flight to basic training so she does not have any service and no other adverse action. She states she attempted to enlist in the Army in June 2013, but was denied due to the reentry code. She states, she has worked in the security field for over seven years and has a strong work ethic. She is requesting consideration in order to pursue a career in the military.


a. Application Receipt Date: 14 February 2014
b. Discharge Received: Uncharacterized
c. Date of Discharge: 21 April 2006
d. Reason/Authority/SPD/RE Code: In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial, AR 635-200,
Chapter 10, KFS, RE-4
e. Unit of assignment: 120th Adjutant General Battalion, Fort
Jackson, SC
f. Current Enlistment Date/Term: 26 September 2005/3 years, 27 weeks
g. Current Enlistment Service: 5 months, 1 day
h. Total Service: 5 months, 1 day
i. Time Lost: 55 days
j. Previous Discharges: None
k. Highest Grade Achieved: E-1
l. Military Occupational Specialty: None
m. GT Score: NIF
n. Education: HS Graduate
o. Overseas Service: None
p. Combat Service: None
q. Decorations/Awards: None
r. Administrative Separation Board: NA
s. Performance Ratings: NA
t. Counseling Statements: No
u. Prior Board Review: No

The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 26 September 2005, for a period of 3 years and 27 weeks. She was 18 years old at the time of entry and a high school graduate. Her record is void of any significant acts of valor and achievement. She completed 5 months and 1 day of active duty service. When her discharge proceedings were initiated, she was AWOL from basic training at Fort Jackson, SC.


1. The applicants disciplinary history includes accrual of 55 days of time lost for being AWOL from 27 September 2005 until her surrender on 21 November 2005.

2. On 1 December 2005, a court-martial charge was preferred against the applicant for violating Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) based on the AWOL offense outlined in the preceding paragraph. On 2 December 2005, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial and of the maximum permissible punishment under the UCMJ, of the possible effects of a discharge under other than honorable conditions, and of the rights and procedures available to her. Subsequent to receiving this legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.

3. In her request for discharge, the applicant acknowledged that by submitting the request for discharge she was admitting she was guilty of the charge against her or of a lesser-included offense that also authorized the imposition of a bad conduct discharge. She also confirmed her understanding that if her request for discharge was approved, she could receive an under other than honorable conditions discharge. She further stated she understood that receipt of an under other than honorable conditions discharge could result in her being deprived of many or all Army benefits, her possible ineligibility for many or all benefits administered by the Veterans Administration, and she could be deprived of her rights and benefits as a veteran under state and federal laws. The applicant confirmed she had no desire to perform further military service and did not submit a statement in her own behalf. The applicant requested to be discharged with a characterization of service of uncharacterized.

4. On 22 March 2006, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that she be processed for immediate separation and issued a uncharacterized discharge.

5. On 21 April 2006, the applicant was discharged accordingly. The DD Form 214 she was issued shows she completed 5 months and 1 day of creditable active military service and accrued 55 days of time lost due to being AWOL.


1. DA Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 1 December 2005, reflects the applicant was charged with being AWOL from her organization from 27 September 2005 until 21 November 2005.

2. Two DA Forms 4187 (Personnel Action), dated 6 October 2005 and 6 December 2005, shows the applicant duty status changed from assigned not joined to AWOL and from dropped from rolls to present for duty/returned to military control.


The applicant provided a DD Form 149, dated 1 February 2014, a DD Form 214, a self-authored statement, five letters of support, a letter from the National Personnel Records Center, dated 26 September 2013, a diploma from Los Angeles Job Corps, dated 18 November 2005, and a copy of her discharge packet.


The applicant states she has worked in the security field for seven years.


1. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) 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 UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

2. 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.

3. Paragraph 3-7b provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. When authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

4. 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 identifies the SPD code of “KFS” as the appropriate code to assign enlisted Soldiers who are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.

5. The SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table shows that a Soldier assigned an SPD Code of “KFS” will be assigned an RE Code of 4.


1. The applicants request a change to the reentry code was carefully considered. However, after examining the applicants record of service, the issues and documents submitted with the application, there are insufficient mitigating factors to merit an upgrade of the applicant’s discharge.

2. The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive discharge. It also shows that after consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

3. The applicant contends that the net service shown on her DD 214 is incorrect. However, the record shows that the applicant had a total of 6 months and 25 days of military service from the date of enlistment until the date of discharge; however the applicant had 55 days of time lost for being AWOL which was deducted from her time in service. As a result, the applicant completed a total of 5 months and 1 day of creditable military service.

4. Further, the applicant was in entry-level status when she returned from AWOL (i.e., she had completed less than 180 days of continuous active duty). The applicant was charged with AWOL and while still in entry-level status voluntarily requested discharge under the provisions of Chapter 10, AR 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial. In essence the applicants separation action was initiated while the applicant was in an entry-level status and the command had the option to characterize the service as under other than honorable conditions or to describe it as uncharacterized.

5. The applicant contends she was young and naive the time of her enlistment. The record shows the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age. There is no evidence to indicate the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.

6. The applicant desires to rejoin the military service. However, Soldiers being processed for separation are assigned reentry codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Based on Army Regulation 635-5-1 and the SPD Code/RE Code Cross Reference Table the applicant was appropriately assigned an RE code of 4. An RE code of 4 cannot be waived and the applicant is no longer eligible for reenlistment.

7. The records show the proper discharge and separation authority procedures were followed in this case.

8. Therefore, the reason for discharge and the characterization of service being both proper and equitable, recommend the Board deny relief.

Type of Hearing: Records Review Date: 28 January 2015 Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify, NA

Counsel: None

Witnesses/Observers: NA

Board Vote:
Character Change: 0 No Change: 5
Reason Change: 0 No Change: 5
(Board member names available upon request)

Board Action Directed:
Issue a new DD Form 214: No
Change Characterization to: No Change
Change Reason to: No Change
Change Authority for Separation: NA
Change RE Code to: NA
Grade Restoration to: NA
Other: NA

AMHRR – Army Military Human Resource Record FG – Field Grade IADT Initial Active Duty Training RE – Reentry
AWOL – Absent Without Leave GD – General Discharge NA – Not applicable SCM- Summary Court Martial
BCD – Bad Conduct Discharge HS – High School NIF – Not in File SPCM – Special Court Martial
CG – Company Grade Article 15 HD – Honorable Discharge OAD – Ordered to Active Duty UNC – Uncharacterized Discharge
CID – Criminal investigation Department MP Military Police OMPF – Official Military Personnel File UOTHC – Under Other Than Honorable Conditions

ADRB Case Report and Directive (cont) AR20140003201

Page 2 of 6 pages