RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           15 March 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040003007


      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             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Raymond J. Wagner             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Jonathon K. Rost              |     |Member               |

      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, in effect, that his reentry (RE) code be
corrected.

2.  The applicant provides no statements or documentary evidence in support
of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 3 February 2000.  He was trained in, awarded and
served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 12B (Combat Engineer).

2.  The applicant’s record documents no acts of valor, significant
achievement of service warranting special recognition, and the highest rank
he attained while serving on active duty was private/E-2 (PV2).

3.  On 21 May 2001, a Charge Sheet (DD Form 258) was prepared preferring a
court-martial charge against the applicant for violating Article 86 of the
Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) by being absent without leave
(AWOL) from
11 October 2000 through 15 May 2001.

4.  On 21 May 2001, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was
advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the
maximum permissible punishment authorized by the UCMJ, the possible effects
of an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge and of the
rights available to him.  Subsequent to this counseling, the applicant
voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of
trial by court-martial.

5.  In his request for discharge, the applicant acknowledged he understood
that if his discharge request was approved, he could be deprived of many or
all Army benefits, that he could be ineligible for many or all benefits
administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and that he could
be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and
State law.

6.  On 15 January 2002, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
request for discharge and directed that he receive an UOTHC discharge.  On
31 January 2001, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The separation
document (DD Form 214) he was issued confirms he completed a total of 1
year, 4 months and 22 days of active military service.  It further shows
that during his tenure on active duty, he earned the Army Service Ribbon.

7.  The DD Form 214 also confirms that he was separated under the
provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by
court-martial.  It also shows that based on the authority and reason for
discharge, he was assigned a separation program designator (SPD) code of
KFS and an RE code of 4.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides,
in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses
for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at
any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for
discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A
discharge UOTHC is normally considered appropriate.

9.  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 US 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, including RA RE codes.  RE-4 applies to persons who are permanently
disqualified for continued Army service.

10.  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, in
pertinent part, that the SPD code of KFS is the appropriate code to assign
to soldiers separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation
635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The SPD/RE Code Cross
Reference Table included in the regulation establishes RE-4 as the proper
code to assign members separated with this SPD code.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s request that his RE-4 code be changed was carefully
considered.  However, by regulation, the RE-4 code assigned the applicant
was the proper code to assign members separating under the provisions of
chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  As
a result, the
RE-4 code was and remains valid.

2.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily
appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to
submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___RJW_  __JTM___  ___JKR _  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.




            ____Raymond J. Wagner____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040003037                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/03/15                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |2002/01/31                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |In Lieu of CM                           |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  04   |100.0300                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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