RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        04 AUGUST 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040009358


      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. Gale J. Thomas                |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James Anderholm               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Richard Dunbar                |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. LaVerne Douglas               |     |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 1998 discharge from the Army National
Guard be upgraded to honorable, that the reason for separation be changed
to “satisfactory participant” and that his RE (reentry) code be changed
from “RE3” to “RE1A” to permit him to enlist in the United States Marine
Corps Reserve.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he had two separate periods of
enlistment and discharge which are not shown on the 1998 National Guard
Bureau (NGB) Form 22 (Report of Separation and Record of Service).  He
notes that he enlisted in a military police unit, which was disbanded, and
that he received an honorable discharge as a result which is not shown on
the 1998 document.  He states that during his last period of service he was
working as a police officer, his unit was aware of that, and as such, he
asked for an honorable discharge.  He states that “apparently” this was not
accomplished.

3.  The applicant states that he wants to enlist in the United States
Marine Corps Reserve and discovered the “injustments” when he retrieved his
separation documents.  He states that he just wants his records to be
“satisfactory as was [his] dedication and service.”

4.  The applicant provides no evidence in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant served with
the United States Marine Corps, on active duty, for 4 years between
September 1990 and September 1994.  His service was characterized as
honorable and he was issued a Department of Defense Form 214 (Certificate
of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) at the time of his release from
active duty.

2.  On 3 November 1994 the applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard
for a period of 2 years.  He was assigned to a military police company in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

3.  According to documents in his file, in September 1995 his commander
requested that the applicant be discharged for failing to report for annual
muster. The request was approved, and on 7 November 1995 the applicant was
honorably discharged from the Oklahoma Army National Guard.  His NGB Form
22, issued at the time, does reflect his prior period of active and
inactive service under item 10 (record of service) on that form.  He did
receive an RE code of 1 at the time of his 1995 discharge from the Army
National Guard.
4.  On 28 December 1995 the applicant enlisted again in the Army National
Guard, this time for a period of 3 years.

5.  The applicant’s file contains letters informing the applicant that
attendance records of his unit showed that he was absent without proper
authority from the scheduled unit training assemblies in June, July, and
August 1998.  The letters informed him that unexcused absences could result
in his being declared an unsatisfactory participant.  In each case, the
applicant signed for the certified letter acknowledging that he had
received the correspondence.  There is no indication in the record that he
ever provided justification for the absences or that he requested to be
discharged because his civilian job prevented his attendance at unit
training assemblies.

6.  On 8 October 1998 the applicant was discharged from the Oklahoma Army
National Guard and as a Reserve of the Army.  The reason for his discharge
was recorded as unsatisfactory participant, his service was characterized
as general, and he was assigned an RE code of 3.  The 1998 NGB Form 22
reflects the applicant’s prior active and inactive service, including his
service in the United States Marine Corps and his prior service in the Army
National Guard, in item 10 (Record of Service) on the form.

7.  In October 2004 the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s
petition to upgrade his 1998 discharge from the Army National Guard or
change the reason for his discharge.

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.  They are not considered
derogatory in nature and are simply codes used for identification of an
enlistment processing procedures.  RE-3 applies to those individuals who
were not considered fully qualified for reenlistment or continuous service
at the time of separation, but for which a subsequent request for waiver
could be submitted for the purpose of reenlistment at a later date in the
Regular Army and Army Reserve.  Individuals involuntarily discharged for
unsatisfactory participation received an RE-3.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s prior periods of military service, both in the United
States Marine Corps and his initial period of service in the Army National
Guard, are appropriately recorded in item 10 on his 1998 NGB Form 22.  The
applicant’s separation documents, issued at the time of his
discharge/release from those periods of service, are sufficient to document
the characterization of his service during those periods of military
service.  There is no reason to reflect the characterization of prior
service on subsequent separation documents.

2.  There is no evidence, and the applicant has not provided any, that he
requested discharge from the Army National Guard, prior to being
involuntarily discharged for unsatisfactory participation.  The evidence,
which is available, indicates that he was notified and acknowledged
receiving the letters informing him that he had unexcused absences from
unit training assemblies and the consequences of such unexcused absences.

3.  The applicant has also not submitted any evidence that his RE code was
incorrectly assigned.  The fact that he may wish to return to military
service is not, in and of itself, a basis to change the RE code.

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

5.  The applicant is advised that although the Board has determined that
his
RE-3 was properly assigned; this does not mean that he is totally
disqualified from returning to military service.  While the code may be
waived for enlistment in the Regular Army and Army Reserve, the same may
hold true for enlistment in the United States Marine Corps Reserve.  The
applicant is advised that if he desires to enlist, he should contact a
local recruiter whom can best advise him on his eligibility for returning
to military service.  Those individuals can best advise a former service
member as to the needs of the service at the time and may process
enlistment waivers for the applicant’s RE code.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JA____  ___RD __  ___LD  __  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.





                                  ____James Anderholm______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040009358                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050804                                |
|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]