RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            4 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20040010901


      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. James E. Anderholm            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. LaVerne M. 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, in effect, a change to his reentry (RE) code.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he and his wife would like to enlist
in the Army, but his RE-3 code prohibits his reenlistment.

3.  In support of his application, the applicant provides a self-authored
statement, the initial disapproval of his discharge by the separation
authority, report of summary court-martial and request for expeditious out-
processing based on illness of father.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 13 October 2000, the applicant was separated under the provisions of
chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of misconduct.  The
separation document (DD Form 214) he was issued at the time confirms he
held the rank of private/E-1 (PV1), and had completed a total of 1 year and
27 days of active military service.  The DD Form 214 also shows that based
on the authority and reason for his separation, he was assigned a
separation program designator (SPD) code of JKQ and an RE code of RE-3.

2.  On 29 October 2004, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered
the applicant’s case and voted to upgrade the characterization of his
service to fully honorable and to change the authority and reason for his
separation to chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of Secretarial
Authority, but specified this action did not entail a change to the
applicant’s RE code.

3.  The ADRB specifically rejected the RE code issue raised by the
applicant and indicated that the RE-3 code assigned the applicant was
proper and equitable based on his record of service.

4.  The new DD Form 214 issued to the applicant based on the ADRB
action confirms the authority for the applicant’s separation was changed to
paragraph 5-3, Army Regulation 635-200 and the narrative reason for his
separation was changed to Secretarial Authority.  It also shows the
assigned SPD code was changed to JFF, but the RE code remained RE-3.

5.  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-3 applies to persons who are disqualified
for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.

6.  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 JFF is the appropriate code to assign
to Soldiers who separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-3, Army
Regulation 635-200, by reason of Secretarial Authority.  The SPD/RE Code
Cross Reference Table included in the regulation stipulates that the RE
code assignment will be based on the Department of the Army directive
authorizing separation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s request to upgrade his RE code because the RE-3 code he
was assigned prohibits his reenlistment and the supporting documents he
provided were carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient
evidence to support relief beyond that granted as a result of the ADRB
action on this case.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the ADRB voted to upgrade the
applicant’s discharge to fully honorable and to change the authority and
reason for his discharge to paragraph 5-3, Army Regulation 635-200, by
reason of Secretarial Authority.  However, the ADRB directive authorizing
this action stipulated it did not entail a change to the applicant’s RE
code because it was found to be proper and equitable.

3.  By regulation, the RE code assigned to members separated by reason of
Secretarial Authority is established in the directive authorizing the
separation.  In this case, the authorizing directive for separation is the
ADRB action.  Absent any evidence of error or injustice that would warrant
further relief, the RE-3 code now assigned the applicant remains valid.

4.  The applicant is advised that although no further change to his RE code
is recommended, this does not mean he is being denied reenlistment.  While
RE-3 does apply to persons who are not considered fully qualified for
reentry or continuous service; there are provisions that provide for a
waiver of the disqualification.  If he desires to reenlist, he should
contact a local recruiter to determine his eligibility.  Those individuals
can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the
time, and are required to process
RE code waivers.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JEA _  ___RTD _  ___KMD _  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 E. Anderholm____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040010901                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2004-08-04                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  04   |100.0300                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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