RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           26 May2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20040005190


      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. Seema E. Salter               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Susan A. Powers               |     |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 reentry eligibility (RE) code of RE-3
be changed to a RE code of RE-1.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was separated because his unit
failed to provide his wife with a valid ration card.  He was serving 14
days on restriction and he broke restriction to shop for some thing that
she needed because she did not have a valid ration card and could not shop
on her own.  He wants his RE code changed so that he may be eligible to
reenlist in the military.

3.  The applicant provides in support of his request a statement dated 31
October 2003.  In his statement, he says he was assigned to Korea in March
2002.  On 26 February 2003, he married an American who was working in
Korea.  In early April, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under
Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for missing formation
and he was put on restriction.  During the month of April, his wife
attempted to get a valid ration card, but the unit kept telling her to come
back for one reason or another.  His wife was only issued temporary ration
cards on a monthly basis because he only had 3 months left in Korea when
they got married.  On 19 April 2003, he was given permission to get a
haircut and he violated restriction by going shopping.  As a result of this
violation of restriction, he was separated from the military.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 30 July 2001, the applicant enlisted in the Delayed Entry Program
(DEP), in the US Army Reserve for a period of 8 years.  On 26 September
2001, he was discharged from the DEP and enlisted in the Regular Army (RA)
for 5 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 95B
(Military Police).  The applicant completed the training requirements and
he was awarded MOS 95B.  On 5 March 2002, he was assigned to Korea with
duties in his MOS.

2.  Between March 2002 and May 2003, general counseling forms show the
applicant was counseled on numerous occasions for various reasons, to
include: failing to follow instructions numerous times, failing the Army
Physical Fitness Test, operating a motor vehicle in an unsafe manner,
sleeping during training, lack of motivation (twice), failure to obey an
order/regulation (three times), being disrespectful towards a commissioned
officer, wearing a substandard uniform, missing formation (twice),
unsatisfactory duty performance, failure to be at his appointed place of
duty at the time prescribed (three times), being disrespectful to a
noncommissioned officer, and breaking restriction.
3.  On 2 April 2003, NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ was
imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his appointed place of
duty at the time prescribed on 2 and 9 March 2003.  His punishment included
14 days of extra duty and restriction.

4.  On 7 May 2003, NJP was imposed against the applicant for breaking
restrictions on 19 April 2003.  His punishment included reduction from pay
grade E-3 to pay grade E-2, a forfeiture of $300.00 pay (suspended for 6
months) and 14 days of extra duty and restriction.

5.  On 11 July 2003, the applicant's commander officially notified him that
he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of chapter 13,
Army Regulation 635-200, for unsatisfactory performance with a honorable
discharge (HD).  The applicant was advised that the bases for the
recommendation were numerous offenses previously stated and the NJPs that
he received.  He was also advised of the rights available to him.  On the
same date, the applicant acknowledged notification of the commander’s
intent to separate him and declined further legal counsel.  There is no
evidence that he submitted a statement in his own behalf.  He was not
entitled to consideration of his case by a board of officers.

6.  On 15 July 2003, the applicant's commander recommended that he be
separated under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200 for
unsatisfactory performance with an HD.

7.  On 22 July 2003, the appropriate authority waived further
rehabilitative requirements, approved the separation recommendation, and
directed that the applicant be issued an HD.

8.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows that, on 7 August 2003, he was
discharged under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, for
unsatisfactory performance with a HD.  He had completed 1 year, 10 months
and 12 days of creditable active military service.  He had no recorded lost
time.  He was assigned a separation code of "JHJ" and a RE code of RE-3.

9.  On 3 August 2004, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the
applicant’s request for a change in the narrative reason for separation.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 contains the policy and
outlines the procedures for separating individuals for unsatisfactory
performance, and provides, in
pertinent part, that commanders will separate a member under this chapter
when, in the commander's judgment, the member will not develop sufficiently
to participate satisfactorily in further training and/or become a
satisfactory Soldier.  Army policy states that a general discharge, under
honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but an HD may be
granted.

11.  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.  Certain persons who have received nonjudicial punishment are so
disqualified, as are persons with bars to reenlistment, and those
discharged under the provisions of chapters 9, 10, 13, and 14 of Army
Regulaion 635-200.

12.  A code of RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army
service, but the disqualification is waivable.  A separation code of "JHJ"
applies to RA Soldiers separated for unsatisfactory performance under the
provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The available evidence shows the applicant was discharged under the
provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, with an HD, due to
unsatisfactory performance and was assigned a Separation Code of "JHJ" and
an RE-code of RE-3.  These codes apply to persons not qualified for
continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable as determined
by enlistment officials and the needs of the Army.

2.  The applicant should work with local recruiters on ascertaining his
eligibility for continued military service.  Recruiters have the
responsibility to process requests for waivers when it is deemed
appropriate.

3.  The applicant contends that he was separated based on an incident where
he broke restriction.  In fact, he was separated after he had been
counseled numerous times for a number of reasons, to include breaking
restriction, and he resisted corrective measures.  Breaking restriction was
just one of several factors leading to his separation.

4.  In view of the circumstances in this case, both the assigned RE code
and the separation code were, and still are, appropriate as shown on the
applicant's DD Form 214.  The applicant has submitted no evidence that
these codes are in error or should be changed.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__mhm___  __ses___  __sap___  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                 |AR20040005190                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050526                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |100.0300                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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