RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        21 September 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060003198


      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. Joyce A. Wright               |     |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 eligibility (RE)
Code of "4" be changed to a more favorable code.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he believes his RE Code of "4" is
unjust and should be changed as a result of the upgrade of his discharge on
21 October 2005.  His discharge was upgraded to a general discharge (under
honorable conditions).  This upgrade proves that his service was under
honorable conditions and his rank has been reinstated.  However, his RE
Code will not permit him to reenlist.  He believes this to be totally
unjust and trusts the Board will give him a second chance to serve in the
United States (US) Military.  He was young, he made a mistake and he is
living with that mistake.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 20 February 2002, the date of his discharge.  The
application submitted in this case is dated 14 February 2006.

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 applied to the Army Discharge Review Board and was
granted an upgrade of his discharge on 21 October 2005; therefore his
application is within the statute of limitations.

4.  The applicant’s military records show he entered active duty (AD) on
13 November 1998, for training as a medical supply specialist (76J).  He
was advanced to pay grade E-4 effective 1 June 2000.

5.  All the documents containing the facts and circumstances surrounding
the applicant's discharge are not present in the available records. 

6.  The applicant’s ADRB proceedings indicate that the applicant was
charged with being absent without leave (AWOL) from 11 April 2001 to
20 June 2001.    He consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested, in
writing, discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter
10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.

7.  The applicant submitted a copy of his newly prepared DD Form 214 which
shows that on 20 February 2002,  he was discharged under the provisions of
Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, in lieu
of trial by court-martial, in the pay grade of E-4.  He was furnished a
general discharge, under honorable conditions.  He had completed 3 years
and 28 days of creditable service.

8.  Item 26 (Separation Code), of the applicant's DD Form 214, shows he was
assigned a separation code of "KFS."  Item 27 (Reentry Code), of this same
form, shows he was assigned a RE Code of "4."

9.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an
upgrade of his discharge on 21 October 2005.  The ADRB voted to grant
relief in the form of an upgrade of the characterization of his service to
general, under honorable conditions.  However, the Board determined that
the reason for discharge was proper and equitable and voted not to change
it.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general
discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When
authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory
but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A
characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the
reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such
characterization.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, provides that an honorable
discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits
provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the
quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of
acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is
otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly
inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of
the individual.

13.  Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release
from active duty, individuals will be assigned reentry 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 reentry codes, including RA RE
codes.

14.  RE–4 applies to persons not qualified for continued service by virtue
of being separated from the service with non-waivable disqualifications
such as persons discharged for the good of the service in lieu of trial by
court-martial.

15.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 states that separation codes are three-
character alphabetic combinations, which identify reasons for, and types of
separation from active duty.  The primary purpose of a separation code 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
"KFS" is the appropriate separation code for individuals separated for the
convenience of the Government in lieu of trial by court-martial.

16.  Table 2-3 (SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table), Army Regulation
635-5 establishes the proper reentry codes to assign to soldiers separating
from the Army.

17.  A "cross-reference" chart, provided by officials from the Separations
Branch at the U.S. Army Human Resources Command, confirms that the Reentry
Code “4" is the appropriate RE code for individuals who receive an SPD code
of "KFS."





18.  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 Army Discharge Review Board (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
Army Board for Correction of Military Records (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 the three years of the
decision of the ADRB; therefore, the applicant has timely filed.

2.  The facts and circumstances pertaining to the applicant's discharge are
unavailable for review.  However, his ADRB proceedings show that he was
charged with AWOL from 11 April 2001 to 20 June 2001.  He was discharged
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of
trial by court-martial.  He was initially furnished a discharge under other
than honorable conditions.

3.  The applicant's separation code, "KFS" is consistent with the reason
for his separation and the RE Code applied to his DD Form 214 is consistent
with the separation code; therefore, the applicant is not entitled to a
change of his separation code or his RE Code.

4.  The applicant has provided no evidence to show that the RE Code issued
to him at the time of discharge was improper or inequitable or should be
changed now.

5.  The evidence shows that the applicant’s UOTHC discharge was upgraded to
general, under honorable conditions, and the ADRB determined that the
reason for discharge was both proper and equitable, and voted not to change
it.  The ADRB did not change his RE Code at the time his discharge was
upgraded.

6.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must
show, to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise 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

__JCR___  __DWT _  __WFC__  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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.




                                  _____William F. Crain______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060003198                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060921                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |                                        |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |20020220                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, chap 10                     |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |

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