RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:            25 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:   AR20050000891


      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             |
|     |Mrs. Victoria A. Donaldson        |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

      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, to change her reentry (RE) code to
RE-1 and the reason for her separation changed from misconduct to "other."


2.  The applicant states that her discharge was upgraded from under other
than honorable conditions to honorable.  The applicant continues she would
like to become a commissioned officer on active duty in the United States
Air Force, but the RE-3 code prohibits her from being commissioned as an
officer.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty); an 11 January 2005, letter from
Central Michigan University which shows she was awarded a Master of Science
Degree; a copy of her Bachelor of Science Degree from Northwestern State
University; and four letters of recommendation in support of this
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 6 November 1999, the applicant was separated under the provisions of
chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), by reason of
misconduct.  The separation document (DD Form 214) she was issued at the
time confirms she held the rank of specialist/ pay grade E-4, and had
completed a total of 3 years, 1 month, and 12 days of active military
service.  The DD Form 214 also shows that based on the authority and reason
for her separation, she was assigned a separation program designator (SPD)
code of JKA [patterns of misconduct, Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14-
12b] and an RE code of RE-3.

2.  Records show the applicant received nonjudicial punishment for
wrongfully obtaining services from a dining facility, disobeying a lawful
order, and making a false official statement.

3.  On 3 May 2002, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) considered the
applicant’s case.  The ADRB determined the characterization of service was
too harsh and voted to upgrade the characterization of her service to fully
honorable.  However, the ADRB voted unanimously not to change the authority
and reason for her separation.  Additionally, the ADRB did not address
changing the applicant's RE-Code.

4.  The new DD Form 214 issued to the applicant based on the ADRB action
confirms the authority for the applicant’s characterization of service was
changed to honorable.  There were no other changes made to this document.

5.  The provided four letters of recommendation which each state the
applicant is a woman of high morals and values.  Each of the authors also
states the applicant demonstrated what it takes to become an officer.

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
(Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program) 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 JKA is the appropriate code to assign
to Soldiers who separated under the provisions of paragraph 14-12b, Army
Regulation 635-200, by reason of patterns of misconduct.  The SPD/RE Code
Cross Reference Table included in the regulation stipulates that the RE
code assignment will be based on the Department of the Army directive
authorizing separation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s request to upgrade her RE code because the RE-3 code
she was assigned prohibits her being commissioned as an officer in the
United States Air Force.  The supporting documents she provided were
carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support
relief beyond that granted as a result of the ADRB action on this case.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the ADRB voted to upgrade the
applicant’s discharge to fully honorable.  However, the ADRB directive
authorizing this action did not authorize a change to the applicant’s RE
code or the authority and reason because they were found to be proper and
equitable.

3.  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.


4.  By regulation, the RE code assigned to members separated by reason of
JKA Patterns of misconduct 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.

5.  RE codes are a management tool used in the enlistment/reenlistment of
Soldiers.  These codes are used for administrative purposes only and are
not ordinarily used to deny a personnel action.  If the applicant is being
denied a commission in the United States Air Force, it is likely based on
the fact she was separated from active service in the United States Army
for patterns of misconduct.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__MKP__  __REB___  __LMB__  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.





            _M. K. Patterson_____
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050000891                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050825                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1999/12/17                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 para 14-12b. . . . .         |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Patterns of misconduct                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |Deny                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.0000.0000                           |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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