RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:      25 July 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060000503


      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. Jessie B. Strickland          |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Allen L. Raub                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. LaVerne Douglas               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Peguine M. Taylor             |     |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 Reentry (RE) Code of “3” be changed to
a “1”.

2.  The applicant states that he desires his RE Code to be changed to a “1”
as he would like to serve his country once more.  He further states that he
is an experienced combat veteran and that he does not drink anymore.  He
also states that he believes he was discharged because of a force reduction
directed by the administration at the time and that he has lived with this
injustice for 13 years and he believes he deserves another chance.  He
continues by stating that it would be in the military’s interest to take
him back as he is an experienced combat veteran who would happily go back
to the middle east.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documents with his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  He initially enlisted in the Texas Army National Guard (TXARNG) on 21
July 1989 and was ordered to active duty for training (ADT) on 28 June 1990
to undergo his training.  He completed his training as a combat engineer at
Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri and was released from ADT on 4 October 1990.
He was returned to his TXARNG unit and on 26 November 1990, he was
honorably discharged from the TXARNG to enlist in the Regular Army.

2.  On 27 November 1990, he enlisted in the Regular Army and was
transferred to Germany on 9 December 1990.  He was advanced to the pay
grade of E-3 on 1 August 1991.  During his tour in Germany he deployed and
served in Southwest Asia in support of Operation Desert Shield/Storm for a
period of 5 months before deploying back to Germany.  He departed Germany
on 2 June 1992 and was transferred to Fort Carson, Colorado.

5.  In October 1992, the applicant was counseled regarding his failure of a
record Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT).  In January 1993, he was
counseled regarding a report that he had abused his spouse during the
Christmas Holidays and that a case number had been assigned.  The applicant
asserted that the accusation was false and that it did not occur during the
Christmas Holidays.

6.  During the period of May through July 1993, he was counseled on at
least four occasions for failure to go to his place of duty at the
appointed time.

7.  On 7 July 1993, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the
applicant for two specifications of failure to go to his place of duty.
His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2 and a
forfeiture of pay (both suspended for 90 days), extra duty and restriction.

8.  On 24 August 1993, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation
and was deemed mentally responsible.

9.  Although all of the facts and circumstances are not present in the
available records, it appears that he was arrested by civil authorities and
was convicted of driving under the influence.  He was sentenced to 30 days
in the work release program at the El Paso County Jail.

10.  His records show that he was confined by civil authorities during the
periods of 11 June through 16 June 1993 and 2 October through 23 October
1993.

11.  On 29 November 1993, the applicant’s commander notified him that he
was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct – due to his
conviction by civil authorities.  The applicant was advised that he could
receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions and he was
advised of all of his rights.  He  refused to consult with counsel and
informed the commander that he just wanted the chapter discharge expedited.
 He waived all of his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his
own behalf.

12.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge
and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

13.  Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on
10 December 1993, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter
14, for misconduct – conviction by civil authorities.  He had served 2
years, 11 months, and 16 days of total active service during his current
enlistment.  He had 35 days of lost time due to civil confinement and he
was issued a RE Code of “3”.

14.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) on 18
June 1998 requesting that his discharge be upgraded to honorable based on
the same issues he has asserted to this Board.  The ADRB conducted a review
of his records and determined that his discharge was both proper and
equitable, given the circumstances of his case.  The ADRB denied his appeal
on 2 August 1998. The applicant was subsequently afforded a personal
appearance before the ADRB on 9 April 2003 and when he failed to show for
that hearing, the ADRB informed him that he must apply to this Board for
further relief.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200, sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and
procedures for separating personnel for misconduct.  Specific categories
included minor infractions, a pattern of misconduct, involvement in
frequent incidents of a discreditable nature with civil and military
authorities, and conviction by civil authorities.  Although an honorable or
general discharge is authorized, a discharge under other than honorable
conditions is normally considered appropriate.

16.  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, and those discharged under the provisions of chapters 5, 9,
10, 13, 14, and 16 of Army Regulation 635-200.  A waiting period of 2 years
from separation is required before a waiver may be submitted through local
recruiting offices.  Waivers are normally considered based on the needs of
the service at the time and change as the needs of the service change.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in
accordance with applicable regulations with no indication of any violations
of the applicant’s rights.

2.  The applicant was correctly issued an RE Code of “3”, which the
applicable regulations indicate is appropriate for the type of separation
the applicant received.

3.  While the applicant is to be commended for abstaining from the use of
alcohol, that alone is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant a change of
his RE Code, which is the correct code for his separation.  However, the
applicant is not precluded from applying for a waiver of the RE Code at a
local recruiting office.

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.






BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___LD___  __ALR __  __PMT__  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.





                                  ____  Allen L. Raub _________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060000503                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060725                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |(DENY)                                  |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES                  |                                        |
|1.100.0300/4/re code    |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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