RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        15 November 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050004520


      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:

|     |Mr. Stanley Kelley                |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Robert L. Duecaster           |     |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 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 it was his
failing while in military occupational specialty (MOS) school at Fort
Gordon that 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
reentry code changed so he can rejoin the Army.

4.  The applicant provides four letters of support and two Certificates of
Appreciation.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged injustice which
occurred on 21 December 2001.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 20 March 2005.

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 in the U. S. Army Reserve on 22 February 2000
and was ordered to initial active duty for training on 14 March 2000.  He
successfully completed basic combat training at Fort Benning Georgia.  He
did not complete advanced individual training at Fort Gordon, Georgia.

4.  A DD Form 458 (Charge Sheet), dated 10 August 2000, shows charges were
preferred against the applicant for being AWOL for the period 20 June 2000
through 7 August 2000.

5.  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.

6.  On 4 December 2001, 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 1 year,
7 months, and 20 days of creditable active service with 48 days of lost
time due to AWOL.

7.  On 21 December 2001, the applicant was discharged from active duty and
was issued an under other than honorable conditions discharge based on the
provisions of chapter 10 of Army Regulation 635-200.  His DD Form 214 shows
in item 26 (Separation Code) the entry "KFS."  Item 27 (Reentry Code) of
this DD Form 214 shows the entry "4."

8.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to
upgrade his discharge.  On 19 June 2002, 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.

9.  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.

10.  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 nonwaivable disqualification.

11.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes)
identifies separation code KFS as "In Lieu of Trial by Court-Martial."


12.  The SPD/Reentry Code (RE) cross reference table states that when the
SPD is KFS then the reentry code will be 4.

13.  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 it was his failing in school at Fort Gordon
that 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 for his problem.
Therefore, there is no basis for this argument.

3.  The applicant stated that he needed his reentry code changed in order
to reenter military service.  However, the ABCMR does not change 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.






BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___SK __  __ JTM __  __RLD__  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. Stanley Kelley ___
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050004520                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |15 November 2005                        |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |                                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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