RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        14 DECEMBER 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060003337


      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. John Slone                    |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Lester Echols                 |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Michael Flynn                 |     |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 her records be corrected by changing item
27, Reentry Code (RE-Code), on her DD form 214 (Certificate of Release or
Discharge from Active Duty).

2.  The applicant states that she wants to reenlist in the U.S. Army, and
feels that being assigned RE-Code "4" was unfair for a general discharge.
She states that the significance of the RE-Code was not explained to her at
the time of her discharge.  She also feels enough time has elapsed for her
to prove that her maturity level is 100 percent higher than during her past
enlistment, and she wants a second chance at becoming a Soldier.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of her DD Form 214, in support of her
request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 13 August 1999, for
a period of 8 years.  On 9 September 1999, she requested release from the
delayed entry program and enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 4
years.  She completed basic training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, and advanced
individual training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, and was assigned to
Fort Lee, Virginia, for the remainder of her military service.  She was
promoted to pay grade of E-2 on 9 May 2000.

2.  On 20 September 2000, she accepted nonjudicial punishment under the
provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for the
wrongful use of marijuana.  Her punishment was reduction to pay grade E-1,
a forfeiture of $150.00 pay for one month of which $100.00 was suspended
for 90 days, 45 days of extra duty, and 45 days of restriction.

3.  The applicant was advised by her commander that he was initiating
action to separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
Chapter 14, for commission of a serious offense.  The reason for his
proposed action was the applicant testing positive for the use of
marijuana.  She was informed of her rights and options available to her.

4.  On 15 November 2000, the applicant, after consulting with counsel,
acknowledged that she understood the reasons for her commander’s actions to
separate her under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14,
and its effects and the rights available to her.  She requested legal
counsel and elected not to submit a statement on her own behalf.  She
acknowledged that she understood she could expect to encounter substantial
prejudice in civilian life if a general or less than honorable discharge
was issued to her and that she may be ineligible for many or all benefits
as a veteran under both Federal and State laws if issued a discharge under
other than honorable conditions.

5.  On 16 November 2000, a review of the applicant's separation action by
an administrative law attorney found her commander's actions to separate
her legally sufficient.

6.  On 20 November 2000, the Equal Opportunity Advisor reviewed the
applicant's case and found no evidence of discrimination or unfair
treatment.

7.  The applicant’s commander recommended elimination from the service,
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, with the
issuance of a general discharge certificate.

8.  Her intermediate commander recommended approval of recommendation with
the issuance of a general discharge certificate.

9.  On 11 December 2000, the appropriate separation authority approved the
discharge recommendation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200,
Chapter 14, and directed the issuance of a general discharge, under
honorable conditions.

10.  On 11 January 2001, the applicant was discharged under the provisions
of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 14, for misconduct, with a
characterization of service as under honorable condition (general).  Her DD
Form 214 indicates she was assigned the RE-Code of "4" and a Separation
Code of "JKK."

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 establishes policy and
prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific
categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct,
commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, and
desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a
member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is
impractical or is unlikely to succeed.






12.  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 United States Army Reserve.
Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribed basic eligibility for prior service
applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE-
Codes, including RA RE-Codes.

13.  RE-4 applies to individuals who were separated from their last period
of service with a non-waivable disqualification.

14.  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 “JKK” is
the appropriate SPD code for individuals involuntarily separated for
misconduct.

15.  A “cross-reference” table, provided by officials from the U.S. Army
Human Resources Command-Alexandria, confirms that “RE-4” is the appropriate

RE-Code for individuals separated with an SPD code of "JKK".

16.  Army Regulation 601-210, which establishes the policies and provision
for enlistment in the Regular Army and United States Army Reserve, states
that
RE-Codes may be changed only if they are determined to be administratively
incorrect.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was separated from active duty because of misconduct and
as such, was not eligible to reenlist, and received a RE-Code of 4.

2.  The evidence confirms that the applicant’s RE-Code was assigned based
on the fact that she was not qualified for continuous service at the time
of separation.  The applicant’s RE-Code is appropriate considering the
basis for her separation, and there is no basis to correct the existing
code.  The fact that she may now want to return to military service and is
more mature is not sufficient justification to change the applicant’s RE-
Code.

3.  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.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JS___  ___LE___  ___MF __  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.





                                  _______John Slone________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060003337                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20061214                                |
|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]