RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        25 January 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004106659


      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. Michael J. Fowler             |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Kathleen A. Newman            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. James E. Anderholm            |     |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, that his character of service and
reentry code be changed on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or
Discharge from Active Duty).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he admits going absent without
leave (AWOL) and takes full responsibility.  He continues that a medical
problem with a loved one caused him to go AWOL after not receiving
assistance from his chain of command.

3.  The applicant further states that he regrets what he did and wants his
characterization and reentry code changed so he can rejoin the Army.

4.  The applicant provides pages 1 and 2 of a DD Form 293 (Application for
the Review of Discharge or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United
States), dated 8 April 2004; a Privacy Act Statement from a Member of
Congress, dated 2 April 2004; and a letter from a Member of Congress, dated
8 April 2004.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 23 August 2000.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 8 April 2004.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 April 1999 and
successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training.  He
was awarded military occupational specialty 13F (Fire Support Specialist).

4.  A DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 29 February 2000, shows charges
were preferred against the applicant for being AWOL for the period 14
October 1999 through 28 February 2000.

5.  On 29 February 2000, records show that the applicant indicated that he
did not want to undergo a medical examination for separation from active
duty.

6.  On 2 March 2000, after consulting with counsel, the applicant submitted
a request for discharge for the good of the service under the provisions of
chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations).  The
applicant indicated in his request that he understood he could be
discharged under other than honorable conditions; that he may be deprived
of many or all Army benefits; that he may be ineligible for many or all
benefits administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs; and that he
may be deprived of his rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal
and State law.  He also acknowledged that he may expect to encounter
substantial prejudice in civilian life.  He waived the right to provide
statements on his own behalf.

7.  On 2 March 2000, the appropriate authority approved the applicant's
request for discharge for the good of the service.  He directed that the
applicant be issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge and
be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.  The applicant completed 11 months
and 24 days of creditable active service with 174 days of lost time due to
AWOL.

8.  On 23 August 2000, the applicant was separated under the provisions of
chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200.  His DD Form 214 shows in Item 24
(Character of Service) the entry "Under Other Than Honorable Conditions".
Item 26 (Separation Code) shows the entry "KFS."  Army Regulation 635-5-1
(Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) identifies separation code KFS
as "In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial."  Item 27 (Reentry Code) of this DD
Form 214 shows the entry "4."  Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and
Army Reserve Enlistment Program) identifies reentry code 4 as ineligible
for enlistment.

9.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to
upgrade his discharge.  On 6 August 2003, the ADRB reviewed and denied the
applicant's request for upgrade.  The ADRB determined that the applicant's
discharge was proper and equitable and that the reason for discharge and
characterization of his discharge was proper as under other than honorable
conditions.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides,
in pertinent part, 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.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable
discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits
provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the
quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of
acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis
added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization
would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be
resolved in favor of the individual.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general
discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When
authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory
but not sufficiently
meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A characterization of under
honorable conditions may be issued only when the reason for the Soldier’s
separation specifically allows such characterization.

13.  Army Regulation 635-5 establishes the standardized policy for
preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  In pertinent part, it directs
that the characterization of service will be entered in item number 24 of
the DD Form 214.  Item number 26 will contain separation code, as shown in
Army Regulation 635-5-1 based on the regulatory authority.

14.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Reserve Enlistment Program)
covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and
processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the US Army Reserve.  Paragraph 3-
22 of the regulation states that reentry code 4 applies to persons
separated from last period of service with a non-waivable disqualification.


15.  Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  The U.S. Court of Appeals, observing
that applicants to the ADRB are by statute allowed 15 years to apply there,
and that this Board's exhaustion requirement (Army Regulation 15-185,
paragraph 2-8), effectively shortens that filing period, has determined
that the 3 year limit on filing to the ABCMR should commence on the date of
final action by the ADRB.  In complying with this decision, the ABCMR has
adopted the broader policy of calculating the 3-year time limit from the
date of exhaustion in any case where a lower level administrative remedy is
utilized.






DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The date of application to the ABCMR is within three years of the
decision of the ADRB; therefore, the applicant has timely filed.

2.  The applicant contends that a medical problem with a loved one caused
him to go AWOL after not receiving assistance from his chain of command.
There is no evidence and the applicant has not provided evidence that shows
he sought assistance from his chain of command, chaplain, Red Cross, or
Army Emergency Relief for his problem.  Therefore, there is no basis for
this argument.

3.  The applicant stated that he needed his characterization and reentry
code changed in order to reenter military service.  However, the ABCMR does
not change character of service or reentry codes solely to allow former
Soldiers to reenter military service.  The applicant was given the proper
reentry code given the circumstances of his case.

4.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in
accordance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural
errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.

5.  In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is determined that all
requirements of law and regulations were met and the rights of the
applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.

6.  The applicant's record of service shows that he had 174 days of lost
time due to AWOL which does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct
and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's
record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant a general
discharge or an honorable discharge.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__JEA___  __KAN__  __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.





                                  ___ Mr. James E. Anderholm_
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR                                      |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |YYYYMMDD                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)          |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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