RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           26 April 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20040004291


      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. Rosa M. Chandler              |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Melvin H. Meyer               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Karen A. Heinz                |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Lawrence Foster               |     |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 that his under other than honorable conditions
(UOTHC) discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.  He also requests
that his Reentry Eligibility (RE) Code of RE-4 on his DD Form 214
(Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) be changed to a more
favorable code so that he may be eligible to reenter the military.

2.  The applicant states that clemency is warranted in his case because it
is an injustice for him to continue to suffer the adverse consequences of a
UOTHC discharge, particularly when the general character of his service was
good.  This is evidenced by his promotion record, and the fact that no
disciplinary action was taken against him.  He realizes that leaving his
unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status was a serious offense.
However, he was young and afraid of being punished.  Presently, he is an
honor student at the University of Idaho and expects to receive his
bachelor's degree in the spring of 2005.  He desires to have his discharge
upgraded and his RE code of RE-4 changed so that he may be able to reenter
the Army and fulfill his military obligation.

3. The applicant states in an undated letter written to the Board that he
was unjustly and illegally punished by his chain of command.  He believes
the illegal punishment is mitigating and warrants granting him an RE code
of
RE-3 versus the RE code of RE-4 that he received.

4.  The applicant provides in support of his request a:

      a.  DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active
Duty).

      b.  Correspondence and Certificates of Achievement from the College
of the Desert, Palm Desert, California which shows the applicant was on the
Dean's List between the fall of 2002 and spring of 2003.

      c.  Associates in Arts Degree from the College of the Desert, dated
22 May 2003.

      d.  Academic Transcript from the University of Idaho, dated 7 July
2004.

      e.  Correspondence to the President of the United States, undated.

      f.  Correspondence that was written between the applicant and his
Representative in Congress, dated 31 January 2000, 17 February 2000,
28 March 2000 and, one undated.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 8 July 1998, at age 19, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army
for
4 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B
(Infantry) and the United States Army Incentive Enlistment Program cash
bonus in the amount of $12,000.00.  Following completion of all required
military training, he was awarded MOS 11B and assigned to Fort Campbell,
Kentucky.

2.  The correspondence provided by the applicant shows that on 4 November
1999, he reported to sick call, for a skin problem and medical personnel
detected the smell of alcohol on his breath.  A breathalyzer determined the
applicant was under the influence of alcohol during the duty day.  The
applicant's chain of command was informed of the breathalyzer results
because he was not of legal age to consume alcohol.  The applicant's
commander instructed the first sergeant to inquire from whom the applicant
got the alcohol.  The first sergeant asked a sergeant first class (SFC) in
the applicant's chain of command to act as a witness in the investigation
of the incident.  The applicant refused to disclose where he got the
alcohol.  However, a friend admitted purchasing the alcohol for the
applicant.  At some point after this incident occurred, the SFC tasked the
applicant to perform extra duty by assisting the charge of quarters (CQ) in
cleaning the company area.  The applicant performed the task.  However, the
applicant did not report to the CQ for additional duty on Saturday, 6
November 1999.  The SFC was counseled on exceeding his authority by
directing the applicant to perform extra duty.  The applicant's under age
drinking is not referenced in the available record.

3.  The applicant left his unit in an absent without leave (AWOL) status
from
9 November 1999 to 23 August 2000 until he was apprehended by civilian
authorities and returned to military authorities at the Personnel Control
Facility, Fort Sill, Oklahoma.  On 29 August 2000, court-martial charges
were preferred against the applicant for this period of AWOL.

4.  On 31 August 2000, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and
requested discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-
200 for the good of the service in lieu of court-martial.  He was advised
that he could receive a UOTHC discharge.  He authenticated a statement with
his signature acknowledging he understood the ramifications and effects of
receiving a UOTHC discharge.  He declined to submit a statement in his own
behalf.  On the same date, the applicant was placed on excess leave pending
completion of the separation process.



5.  On 17 January 2001, the applicant's commander recommended approval of
the applicant's request and the issuance of a UOTHC discharge.  The
commander cited the basis for his request was that the applicant was
charged with one period of AWOL totaling 293 days.  The applicant had
become disillusioned with the military and that retention of the applicant
was not in the best interest of the Army.

6.  On 30 January 2000, the approval authority approved the applicant's
request for discharge under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation
635-200 and directed that he be separated with a UOTHC discharge in pay
grade E-1.  The highest pay grade that he achieved was pay grade E-3.

7.  The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from
Active Duty) shows that, on 28 February 2001, he was separated under the
provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200 with a UOTHC discharge in
lieu of trial by court-martial.  He had completed 1 year and 10 months of
active military service.  His DD Form 214 also shows lost time from 9
November 1999-
28 August 2000.  He was assigned a Separation Code of "KFS" and a RE code
of "RE-4."

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 enlisting and
processing into the RA and the eligibility for prior service applicants
for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of Armed Forces RE codes and
RA RE codes.

9.  A code of RE-4 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army
service and the disqualification is nonwaiverable.

10.  A separation code of "KFS" applies to RA Soldiers ineligible for,
barred from, or otherwise denied reenlistment due to being separated in
lieu of trial by court-martial.

11.  On 5 December 2001, as a result of a records review, the Army
Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant's request for an upgrade
of his discharge.  On 8 April 2003, the applicant appeared before the ADRB
in a personal appearance hearing and he was again denied an upgrade of his
discharge.
12.   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
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 was authorized, a UOTHC
discharge was considered appropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, to avoid trial by court-martial was
administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations.

2.  The Board took into consideration the applicant's entire record of
service and was convinced that both the reason for discharge and the
characterization of service were appropriate considering the facts
surrounding the discharge.

3.  The applicant's RE code has no bearing on any punishment that he may
have received.  If he believed that he was being unfairly punished, he had
many legitimate avenues through which to request assistance.

4.  Given the applicant's excessive amount of lost time and the reason for
separation, his separation code of "KFS" and RE code of RE-4 are correct.
He has provided no evidence or basis for changing these codes.

5.  The applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.
There is no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other
soldiers of the same age who successfully completed their military service
obligation.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__mhm___  __kah___  __lf____  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.


                 Melvin H. Meyer
            ______________________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040004291                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040426                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(UOTHC)                                 |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |20010228                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR635-200, Chap 10                      |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |A60.00                                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |144.6000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |

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