RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:           25 January 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2004104752


      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. Rosa M. Chandler              |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Kathleen A. Newman            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. James E. Anderhom             |     |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 that her reentry (RE) code on her DD Form 214
(Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty) be changed from RE-3
to RE-1.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that at the time of her discharge, she
was experiencing personal problems at home that she believed required
attention.  Two years have passed and she is considering returning to
active duty.  However, her RE code of RE-3 is unfavorable for reenlistment.


3.  The applicant provides a letter written by her grandmother in support
of her request.  The grandmother states that after the applicant left for
basic training, her [applicant's] husband quit his job, stopped paying the
bills, and removed their child from her care.  She also believed the
applicant's husband was in the process of filing for a divorce and custody
of their child even though he often left the child in the care of friends.
She told the applicant these things and advised her she needed to come home
as soon as possible.  The applicant called her husband and he failed take
her phone calls.  The grandmother also states that she regrets she told the
applicant these things, but at the time, she believed the applicant needed
to come home.  The grandmother now has full custody of the applicant's
children and hopes the applicant will be allowed to return to the Armed
Forces of the United States to achieve her goals.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 7 November 2000, the applicant enlisted in the Delayed Entry Program
(DEP).  On 17 November 2000, she was discharged from the DEP and she
enlisted in the Regular Army for 6 years and training in military
occupational specialty (MOS) 91P, Radiology Specialist.  She never
completed the training requirements for MOS 91P and she was never awarded
the MOS.

2.  On 2 December 2000, the applicant was treated at Reynolds Military
Hospital, Fort Sill, Oklahoma after she made a suicide gesture by slashing
her wrist.

3.  On 3 December 2000, during a counseling session, the applicant's drill
sergeant advised her that she had shown no desire to conform to the
standards of a soldier and he was recommending that she be separated for
failure to adapt. The applicant informed her drill sergeant that she was
experiencing personal problems at home and that she had no desire to
continue serving in the military.



4.  On 4 December 2000, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation
and the examining psychiatrist stated that the applicant was cooperative,
engaging, and appropriate in all respects.  The applicant presented
adjustment difficulties to the training environment.  Her motivation,
coping skills, and maturity level were not adequate for that of a trainee.
Recent self-destructive thoughts and acting out were evidence of her
difficulty with being away from her child and managing the stress of a
training environment.  The applicant did not appear suicidal or homicidal
at the time, but the examining psychiatrist believed that she did present a
desperation that led to impulsive acts and that it was only a matter of
time before she would act out.  It was the opinion of the examining
psychiatrist that the applicant would not do well in the military, and that
her problems were not amenable to hospitalization, transfer, or other
rehabilitative efforts.  The applicant's current situtation would be best
addressed through some form of administrative separation.  She appeared to
meet the criteria for separation under the provisions of chapter 11.  The
applicant was psychiatrically cleared for administrative separation or for
any administrative action deemed necessary by the command.

5.  On 4 December 2000, the unit commander counseled the applicant and
notified her of his intent to initiate separation action under the
provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200 with an uncharacterized
discharge for entry-level performance and conduct.  The applicant was
informed of her rights and the impact of the discharge action.  The unit
commander cited the basis for the recommendation was the applicant was
emotionally unstable and demonstrated no motivation to train; that she
attempted to injure herself by cutting her wrist; and that her lack of
discipline and total disregard towards others was disruptive to the good
order and discipline of the unit.

6.  On the same date, the applicant acknowledged notification and waived
legal representation.  She declined to submit a statement in her own
behalf.  She also declined a separation physical.

7.  On 5 December 2000, the approval authority waived further
rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be separated with an
uncharacterized discharge.

8.  The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from
Active Duty) shows that, on 8 December 2000, she was separated under the
provisions of chapter 11, Army Regulation 635-200, due to entry-level
status performance and conduct.  The applicant had completed 22 days of
active military service.  She was assigned an RE Code of RE-3.

9.  On 18 February 2004, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the
applicant’s request for an upgrade of his discharge.

10.  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 enlisting and
processing into the RA and the eligibility for prior service applicants for
enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of Armed Forces RE codes and RA
RE codes.  A code of RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued
Army service; however, the disqualification is waivable.  Local recruiting
personnel have the responsibility for determining whether an individual
meets current enlistment criteria and are required to process a request for
waiver.  There is no evidence that the applicant has ever requested such a
waiver.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 11 of that regulation provides
for the separation of personnel during the initial 180 days of service
while still in an entry-level status.  The policy applies to soldiers who
have demonstrated that they are not qualified for retention because they
cannot meet the minimum standards prescribed for successful completion of
training because of lack of aptitude, ability, motivation or self-
discipline.  These Soldiers are separated with an uncharacterized discharge
under the provisions of chapter 11, by reason of entry-level status
performance and conduct.  Only in certain meritorious cases approved by the
Secretary of the Army are they entitled to an honorable discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The available evidence shows the applicant was discharged due to entry
level performance and conduct.  She lacked the motivation and skill
required to become an effective soldier.  The applicant's administrative
separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with
no indication of procedural errors, which would have jeopardized her
rights.

2.  The applicant has established no basis for removal or waiver of the
disqualification that established the basis her RE code.  The assigned RE
code was, and still is, appropriate.


BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__kan___  __jea___  __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.


                 Kathleen A. Newman
            ______________________
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004104752                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050125                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |100.0300                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |

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