RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            4 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20040011626


      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 her reentry (RE) code.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that while in basic training the
custody and care of her children became a problem, which she was unable to
resolve.  She claims to have asked for help with the problem, but was
denied.  She states that she went to the Judge Advocate General (JAG)
office without permission and this led to her separation.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement in support of her
application and separation document (DD Form 214) in support of her
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s record shows she enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 14 January 2004.

2.  On 15 March 2004, while the applicant was still in training, her unit
commander notified her that separation action was being initiated on her
under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200.  The unit
commander cited the applicant’s lack of self-discipline and lack of the
motivation necessary to complete basic training as the reasons for taking
the action.

3.  The applicant completed a statement acknowledging the notification of
the separation action.  In this statement, she declined the opportunity to
consult with legal counsel, and waived her right to submit a statement in
her own behalf.

4.  On 16 March 2004, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
separation under the provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200, by
reason of entry level status (ELS) performance and conduct, and directed
her service be uncharacterized.  On 19 March 2004, the applicant was
discharged accordingly.

5.  The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant upon her separation confirms
she completed a total of 2 months and 6 days of active military service.
It also confirms she received an uncharacterized separation and was
assigned a separation program designator (SPD) code of JGA and an RE code
of RE-3.
6.  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.

7.  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 JGA is the appropriate code to assign
to Soldiers who separated under the provisions of chapter 11, Army
Regulation 635-200, by reason of ELS performance and conduct.  The SPD/RE
Code Cross Reference Table included in the regulation establishes RE-3 as
the proper code to assign members separated with this SPD code.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s request to change her RE code from RE-3 to RE-1, and
the supporting documents she provided were carefully considered.  However,
there is insufficient evidence to support granting the requested relief.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s separation processing
was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All
requirements of law and regulation were met, and her rights were fully
protected throughout the separation process.

3.  By regulation, the RE code assigned to members separated by reason of
ELS performance and conduct is RE-3.  In this case, the RE-3 code assigned
the applicant was and remains valid based on the authority and reason for
her separation.

4.  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.

5.  The applicant is advised that although no further change to her RE code
is recommended, this does not mean she 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 she desires to reenlist, she should
contact a local recruiter to determine her 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_  ___LMD_  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                 |AR20040011626                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/08/04                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UNCHAR                                  |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |2004/03/19                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 C11                          |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |ELS                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  04   |100.0300                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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