RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         4 OCTOBER 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050000921


      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. Gale J. Thomas                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Mark Manning                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Larry Bergquist               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Carmen Duncan                 |     |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 his records be corrected by upgrading his
reenlistment code (RE Code).

2.  The applicant states his discharge was upgraded from general to
honorable, however his RE Code did not change and has prevented him for
obtaining Government employment.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty) in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on   9 June 1983.  The application submitted in this case is dated
21 December 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 limitations 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 and entered active duty on 18 June 1980.  He
served in Germany from January 1982 to April 1983.

4.  On 4 May 1982, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under the
provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for disobeying a
lawful order.  His punishment was extra duty and a forfeiture of pay.

5.  The facts and circumstances concerning the applicant’s discharge
proceedings are not in the available records.  There is no evidence that
explains when or why his discharge was upgraded.  However his DA Form 2-1
(Personnel Qualification Record) shows in item 27 (Remarks) “RE3 not
eligible for reenlistment.”  His DD Form 214 indicates he was separated
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 4, for expiration
term of service, with a Separation Code (SPD) of “JBK” and a Reenlistment
Code of “RE-3.”


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.

7.  RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but
the disqualification is waivable.  Certain persons who have received
nonjudicial punishment are so disqualified, as are persons with bars to
reenlistment.

8.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 states that SPD codes are three-character
alphabetic combinations, which identify reasons for, and types of
separation from active duty.  The primary purpose of SPD codes is to
provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation.  They are
intended exclusively for the internal use of DOD and the military services
to assist in the collection and analysis of separation data.  It notes that
“JBK” is the appropriate SPD code for individuals involuntarily discharged
upon completion of required active service.

9.  A “cross-reference” table, provided by officials from Separations
Branch at the U.S. Army Human Resources Command-Alexandria, confirms that
“RE-3” is the appropriate RE code for individuals who separated with an SPD
code of JBK.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence confirms that the applicant’s RE code was assigned based
on the fact that he was involuntarily separated under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 4.  He received the appropriate RE code
associated with his discharge.

2.  There is no evidence in the applicant’s available records nor did he
provide documentation to substantiate his claim that his honorable
discharge was the result of having his discharge upgraded and that his
reenlistment code was not upgraded to match his discharge.  It is unclear
as to whether or not the Army Discharge Review Board upgraded the
applicant’s characterization of service, however there have been occasions
when the characterization of service has been changed and a decision made
that the reenlistment code remain unchanged.



3.  The applicant is advised that although his RE-3 was properly assigned;
this does not mean that he is totally disqualified from returning to
military service.  The disqualification upon which the RE-3 was based may
be waived for enlistment purposes.  The applicant is advised that if he
desires to enlist, he should contact a local recruiter who can best advise
him on his eligibility for returning to military service.  Those
individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the
service at the time and may process enlistment waivers for the applicant’s
RE Code.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in
error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would
satisfy that requirement.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 9 June 1983; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
8 June 1986.  The applicant did not file within the 3-year statute of
limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or evidence to
show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse failure to
timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___MM__  __LB  ___  __CD ___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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.






2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




                                  ______Mark Manning________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050000921                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051004                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |112.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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