RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           31 August 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004101145


      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. John N. Slone                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Joe R. Schroeder              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Robert L. Duecaster           |     |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, that his reentry (RE) code of RE-4
be upgraded to RE-1 or RE-2.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he received no Article 15s or any
other form of disciplinary actions while serving on active duty.  He claims
he did not realize that he had a bad RE code until he tried to reenlist and
he does not know the reason he was given an RE-4 code.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his separation document (DD Form 214)
in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant’s record shows that he initially enlisted in the Regular
Army and entered active duty on 19 September 1995.  He continuously served
until being honorably discharged on 2 March 2001.

2.  During his tenure on active duty, the applicant earned the Army
Achievement Medal (2nd Award), National Defense Service Medal, Kosovo
Campaign Medal, Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon,
Army Service Ribbon, North Atlantic Treaty Organization Medal, Expert
Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar and Parachutist Badge.

3.  The applicant’s record is void of any facts and circumstances
surrounding his separation.  However there is a properly constituted
separation document on file that confirms the applicant was separated under
the provisions of chapter 4, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of
completion of required active service.

4.  Item 26 (Separation Code) of the applicant’s DD Form 214 shows that he
was assigned a Separation Program Indicator (SPD) code of KBK and Item 27
(Reentry Code) shows that he was assigned an RE code of RE-4.  The
applicant authenticated the DD Form 214 with his signature in Item 21
(Signature of Member Being Separated).
5.  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.  The SPD code of
KBK is the appropriate code to assign soldiers who are ineligible to
reenlist or soldiers with a Declination of Continued Service Statement in
force at the time of discharge at the completion of their enlistment.  The
SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table establishes that RE-3 as the proper
reentry code to assign soldiers separated under these circumstances.

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-4 applies to persons who are ineligible
for continued service.  RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued
Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s claim that his record was good with no disciplinary or
derogatory information and his request for an RE-1 or RE-2 code were
carefully  considered.  However, this factor alone does not provide a
sufficiently mitigating basis to warrant the requested relief.

2.  The specific facts and circumstances surrounding the applicant’s
separation processing are not on file.  However, the record does contain a
properly constituted DD Form 214 that contains the authority and reason for
the applicant’s separation and the corresponding SPD code.  The applicant
authenticated this document with his signature at the time of his
separation.

3.  By regulation, the proper RE code assignment for members separated
under provisions that authorize an assignment of the SPD code of KBK is RE-
3.  Item 27 of the applicant's DD Form 214 was erroneously annotated with
an RE-4 code.  Therefore, although there is an insufficient evidentiary
basis to support a more favorable RE code assignment as requested by the
applicant, it would be appropriate to correct his separation document to
read RE-3 in Item 27.
4.  The applicant is advised that although his RE code has not been
upgraded to an RE-1, this does not mean that he is disqualified from
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.  Therefore, once the applicant’s RE code
has been changed from RE-4 to RE-3, if he still 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 waivers of RE codes.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

_JNS____  __JRS__  __RLD __  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board
recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual
concerned be corrected by amending Item 27 of his DD Form 214 to read “RE-
3” vice RE-4 as is currently listed and by providing him a corrected
separation document that reflects this change.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is
insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result,
the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to
upgrading the RE code assigned to RE-1 or RE-2 as requested by the
individual concerned.




            ____John N. Sloane________
                    CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004101145                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2004/08/DD                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |2001/03/02                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 C4                           |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |ETS                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT PARTIAL                           |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  4    |100.0300                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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