RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            4 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20050000233


      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. Lisa O. Guion                 |     |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, that his reentry (RE) code of RE-4
be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he was not made aware of the
severity of his unwise and immature decisions made resulting in the reason
for his discharge.  He states that he would like to have his discharge
upgraded to allow him to reenlist in the Army.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his separation document and three
character reference letters in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's military records show he enlisted and entered active
duty on 24 March 2000 for a period of three years.  He completed Basic
Combat Training (BCT) and Advanced Individual Training (AIT) at Fort
Benning, Georgia.  Upon completion of AIT, the applicant was awarded
Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) "11B" (Infantryman).

2.  The applicant’s Personnel Qualification Record (DA Form 2-1) confirms
in Item 35 (Record of Assignments) that he was reported absent without
leave (AWOL) on 19 September 2000, dropped from the rolls (DFR) on 19
October 2000, and returned to military control on 4 January 2001.  Item 21
(Time Lost) shows that he accumulated 106 days lost time.

3.  On 18 January 2001, a Charge Sheet (DD Form 458) was prepared
preferring a court-martial charge against the applicant for violation of
Article 86 of the UCMJ by being AWOL from on or about 19 September 2000
through on or about 4 January 2001.

4.  On 18 January 2001, the applicant consulted legal counsel and was
advised of the basis for the contemplated trial by court-martial, the
maximum permissible punishment authorized under the UCMJ, the possible
effects of an UOTHC discharge, and of the procedures and rights that were
available to him.  Subsequent to this counseling, the applicant voluntarily
requested discharge for the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-
martial.

5.  In his request for discharge, the applicant acknowledged his
understanding that he would be deprived of many or all Army benefits, that
he could be ineligible for many or all benefits administered by the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), and that he could be deprived of his
rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law. He also
indicated that he understood he could face substantial prejudice in
civilian life because of his undesirable discharge.

6.  On 5 December 2001 the separation authority approved the applicant’s
request for discharge and directed that he receive an under other than
honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge under the provisions of chapter 10,
Army Regulation 635-200.  On 21 December 2001, the applicant was discharged
accordingly.

7.  The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant on the date of his discharge
confirms that he had completed a total of 1 year, 5 months and 11 days of
creditable active military service, and that he accrued a total of 106 days
of lost time.  It also confirms that he was separated by reason of in lieu
of trial by court martial and that he was assigned a Separation Program
Designator (SPD) code of KFS and an RE code of RE-4.

8.  The third-party supporting statements provided by the applicant support
his request and attest to his good character and post service conduct.

9.  There is no evidence indicating that the applicant applied to the Army
Discharge Review Board (ADRB) requesting an upgrade of the characterization
of his discharge or a change to the narrative reason for his separation
from the Army within the ADRB’s 15-year statute of limitations.

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.  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 members who are disqualified
from future enlistment.

12.  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 KFS is the appropriate code to assign
to soldiers separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation
635-200, by of in lieu trial by court martial.  The SPD/RE Code Cross
Reference Table establishes that RE-4 will be the code assigned to members
separated with this SPD code.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that the RE code assigned to him at the time
of his discharge should be upgraded because he was not made aware of the
severity of his actions and to allow him to reenlist in the Army has been
carefully considered.  However, these factors are not sufficiently
mitigating to warrant the requested relief.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was charged with the
commission of an offense punishable under the UCMJ with a punitive
discharge. After consulting with defense counsel, the applicant voluntarily
requested discharge from the Army in lieu of trial by court-martial.

3.  The evidence of record further shows the applicant’s discharge
processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.
All requirements of law and regulation were met and that the rights of the
applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  As a
result, his discharge was proper and equitable, and the RE-4 code he
received was appropriately assigned based on the authority and reason for
her discharge.

4.  Further, under current regulatory standards, an RE-4 representing a
nonwaivable disqualification is assigned to Soldiers who are discharged
under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, as was the
applicant.

5.  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

___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. Anderhom___
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050000233                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |NA                                      |
|DATE BOARDED            |2005/08/04                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |2001/12/21                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |IN LIEU OF TRIAL BY COUR MARTIAL        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |100.0300                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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