RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        21 September 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050017047


      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. Judy L. Blanchard             |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. William F. Crain              |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jeffrey C. Redmann            |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. David W. Tucker               |     |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 be change
from RE-4 to RE-3.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that while he recognizes that he was
completely in the wrong for going absent without leave (AWOL), he believes
that being permanently barred from reentry is an excessive punishment for
his action.

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored letter in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 7 August 2000, the date he was discharged from service.
The application submitted in this case is dated 26 September 2005; however,
was not received until 1 December 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’s record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army on
30 December 1998 for a period of 4 years.

4.  On 10 February 2000, court-martial charges were preferred against the
applicant for being AWOL from 12 March 1999 to 4 February 2000.

5.  On 17 February 2000, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was
advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action, the effects of
a discharge under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC), and of the
rights available to him.  The applicant voluntarily requested discharge for
the good of the service, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  In his request
for discharge, he acknowledged that he was guilty of the charge against him
or of a lesser-included offense therein contained which also authorizes the
imposition of a bad conduct or dishonorable discharge.  He further stated
that under no circumstances did he desire further rehabilitation, for he
had no desire to perform further military service.  He also stated his
understanding that if his discharge request was approved, he could 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 further indicated that he understood that
he could encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life by reason of an
UOTHC.

6.  On 18 February 2000, the applicant was placed in an excess leave status
without pay and allowances.

7.  On 20 July 2000, the separation authority approved the applicant’s
request for discharge and directed that he be issued an Under Other Than
Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate.

8.  On 7 August 2000, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The
separation document (DD Form 214) he was issued confirms he completed 8
months and
9 days of creditable active military service and accrued 322 days of time
lost.  He was assigned a separation program designator (SPD) code of KFS
and an RE code of RE-4.

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 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.  The SPD code of
KFS (in lieu of trial by court-martial) and the SPD/RE Code Cross Reference
Table establishes that RE-4 as the proper reentry code to assign Soldiers
separated under these circumstances.

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 persons who are permanently
disqualified for continued Army service.

12.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army
Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-
year statute of limitations.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contentions were carefully considered.  However, by
regulation, the RE-4 code assigned to the applicant was the proper code to
assign members separating under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
chapter 10.  As a result, the RE-4 code and the narrative reason for
separation were and still are appropriate.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant’s separation processing
was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  This
includes the assignment of his SPD and RE codes.  All requirements of law
and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were protected
throughout the separation process.

3.  RE-4 applies to persons who are permanently disqualified for continued
Army service.

4.  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.

5.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 7 August 2000; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on
6 August 2003.  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

__WFC__  __JCR___  __DWT _  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.




                                           William F. Crain_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR                                      |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/09/21                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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