RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        20 September 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040011087


      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. G. E. Vandenberg              |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James C. Hise                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas E. O'Shaughnessy, Jr.  |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Patrick H. McGann, Jr.        |     |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 reenlistment eligibility (RE) code be
changed.

2.  The applicant states that there is no error or injustice in his current
RE code but that he would like it changed to one that would allow him to
reenlist and give him a second chance.  He indicates he was told to apply
to this Board to request a change in his RE code.

3.  The applicant provides no supporting documentation.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's records show he entered active duty on 13 August 2003.

2.  On 28 January 2004, while still in advanced individual training (AIT),
the applicant went AWOL (absent without leave).

3.  He was apprehended by civilian authorities on 23 April 2004 and
returned to military control on 23 April 2004.

4.  Court-martial charges were preferred for this 87-day period of AWOL.

5.  On 3 May 2004, after consulting with counsel and being advised of his
rights and options, the applicant submitted a formal request for discharge
for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He acknowledged he had
been advised of and understood his rights under the Uniform Code of
Military Justice, that he could receive an under other than honorable
conditions (UOTHC) discharge which would deprive him of many or all of his
benefits as a veteran, that he could expect to experience substantial
prejudice in civilian life if he received an UOTHC discharge, and that
there is no automatic upgrading or review of a less than honorable
discharge.

6.  On 4 May 2004 the discharge authority approved the discharge request
and directed that the applicant be separated with an UOTHC.

7.  The applicant was discharged, as a private (E-1), in accordance with
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He had 6 months and 4 days of
creditable service with 87 days of lost time.

8.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment
Program), chapter 3 sets forth basic eligibility criteria for prior service
applicants for enlistment.  It provides 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.

9.  Army Regulation 601-210, paragraph 3-22, lists the criteria for RE
codes as:

      a.  RE-1 applies to persons completing their term of active service
who are considered fully qualified to reenter the U.S. Army;

      b.  RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service,
but their disqualification is waiverable.  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 Regulation 635-200; and

      c.  RE-4 applies to persons separated with a nonwaivable
disqualification; this includes persons separated in pay grade E-2 and
below and those separated with a Department of the Army imposed bar to
reenlistment in effect.

10.  Army Regulation 601-210, paragraph 3-27 (Correction of Army RE codes)
states that RE codes may be changed only if they are determined to be
administratively incorrect.  Only when there is evidence to support an
incorrect RE code or when there is an administrative error should an
applicant be advised to request a correction.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides
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 under
other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

12.  The Manual for Courts-Martial, Table of Maximum Punishments, sets
forth the maximum punishments for offenses chargeable under the UCMJ.  A
punitive discharge is authorized for offenses under Article 86, for periods
of AWOL in excess of 30 days.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to
avoid trial by court-martial, was administratively correct and in
conformance with applicable regulations.  There is no indication that the
request was made under coercion or duress.

2.  While a discharge under chapter 10 usually carries an RE-3 code,
regulations state that personnel who are discharged in pay grade E-1 or E-2
will receive an RE-4.

3.  There appears to be no basis for removal or waiver of the
disqualification which established the basis for the RE-4 code.

4.  By his own admission the applicant notes that there is no error in the
record.  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

_JCH____  __TEO__  __PHM___ 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.





                                  ______________________
                                            CHAIRPERSON

                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040011087                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050920                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     | . . . . .                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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