RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           13 JULY 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2004100050


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Ms. Deborah L. Brantley           |     |Senior Analyst       |


  The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Samuel Crumpler               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Stanley Kelley                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Mark Manning                  |     |Member               |

      The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that her RE (Reentry Eligibility) Code be
changed.

2.  The applicant states she should have had an RE Code of 1 or 2, but
received an RE-3.  She states she was not dismissed on “bad conduct.”  She
states she was told that she would be able to “join the service again with
no problems” and that she really wants to be in the military.  She notes
that the RE Code is “causing a delay and confusion.”

3.  The applicant provides no evidence in support of her request beyond a
copy of her separation document.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant entered
active duty on 11 March 2003.

2.  The applicant’s records contain a 23 July 2003 counseling form which
indicated that the applicant was being counseled for failing the run
portion of the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT) for a third time.  It
noted that she had failed to achieve the minimum standard on the run event
of the APFT throughout her basic training cycle.  The applicant was told
that she showed “an unconcerned attitude towards the Army” and that her
lack of motivation had not gone unnoticed.

3.  The counseling document informed the applicant she could be subjected
to separation and that if she were discharged prior to the expiration of
term of service (ETS) date she may be precluded from “enlisting in any
component of the Armed Forces.”

4.  The applicant’s commander notified her, on 4 August 2003, that he was
initiating actions to administratively separate the applicant from active
duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11.  He
informed her that the basis for his recommendation was her “demonstrated
character and behavior characteristics that are not compatible with
satisfactory service” and that she failed to “show improvement and
motivation needed to meet the standards of the APFT need to completed
training.”  He informed the applicant that she would receive an entry-level
separation.

5.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation and
waived her attendant rights.

6.  The recommendation was approved and on 8 August 2003 the applicant was
discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 11 for
entry-level performance and conduct.  Her service was uncharacterized and
she received an RE Code of “3.”

7.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 11 of that regulation provides
for the separation of personnel in an entry-level status, as a result of
entry level performance or conduct, who cannot or will not adapt socially
or emotionally to military life or who have demonstrated character and
behavior characteristics not compatible with satisfactory continued
service.  These provisions apply only to individuals whose separation
processing is started within 180 days of entry into active duty.

8.  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 and
processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the United States Army Reserve.
Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribed basic eligibility for prior service
applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE
Codes, including RA RE Codes.  RE-3 applies to persons who were not
considered fully qualified for reentry or continuous service at the time of
separation, including those discharged for entry level performance and
conduct.  RE-2 applied to Soldiers separated prior to
28 March 1995.

9.  Army Regulation 601-210 states that a waiver is required for any
applicant who was separated or discharged from any component of the United
States Armed Forces for entry level performance or conduct.  Waiver may not
be submitted until a 2-year period has elapsed since separation or
discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence shows that the applicant acknowledged, as part of her
separation processing, that her service would be uncharacterized and that
she may be precluded from future enlistment in the Armed Forces.  Her RE
Code of 3 was assigned based on the fact that she was released prior to her
ETS date.  Her belief that it was assigned because of being “dismissed on
bad conduct” is without foundation.  She was not “dismissed on bad conduct”
but rather because of her inability to pass the APFT, which her commander
attributed to her lack of motivation.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in
compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural
errors, which would tend to jeopardize her rights.  The fact that she may
be precluded from returning to military service at this time does not serve
as justification to change her RE Code nor serve as evidence of any error
or injustice in the assigned code.

3.  The Board notes that the applicant's RE code is consistent with the
reason for her discharge and in this case finds no basis to correct the
existing code.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to
submit evidence that would satisfy that requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

____SC _  __SK ___  ___MM __  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.





            ____Samuel Crumpler_______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004100050                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040713                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]