RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        27 March 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060012338


      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. Gerard W. Schwartz            |     |Acting Director      |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Kenneth L. Wright             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Chester A. Damian             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Ernestine R. Fields           |     |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, a change to his reentry (RE) code.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB)
upgraded his discharged from Under Other Than Honorable Conditions (UOTHC)
to General, Under Honorable Conditions (GD), and indicated NA (Not
Applicable) next to the RA code decision.  He states he would like his RE
code changed to NA as indicated by the ADRB and believes it was not changed
due to a clerical error.

3.  The applicant provides the ADRB decisional document in support of his
application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's record shows that he enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 21 May 2003.  It also shows he never completed
training and was not awarded a military occupational specialty (MOS).  His
record documents no acts of valor, significant achievement, or service
warranting special recognition.

2.  On 5 April 2004, a court-martial charge was preferred against the
applicant for violating Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ) by being absent without leave (AWOL) from 17 February 2004 through
28 March 2004.  After consulting with legal counsel, the applicant
voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.

3.  On 7 April 2004, the separation authority approved the applicant's
request for discharge and directed he receive an UOTHC discharge and that
he be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.  On 14 April 2004, the
applicant was discharged accordingly.  The separation document (DD Form
214) he was issued at the time shows he was separated under the provisions
of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
It also shows that based on the authority and reason for his separation, he
was assigned a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of KFS and an RE
code of RE 4.

4.  On 1 May 2006, the ADRB determined the applicant's discharge was too
harsh based on his overall record of service and post service
accomplishments, and it voted to upgrade the characterization of his
discharge to GD.  However, the ADRB voted not to change the authority and
reason for discharge.

5.  By law and regulation, RE code changes are not within the purview of
the ADRB.  The ADRB can only change an RE code when it votes to change the
authority and reason for discharge to chapter 5, Army Regulation 635-200,
Secretarial Authority, which it did not do in this case.

6.  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 (USAR).  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 have a nonwaivable disqualification.

7.  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.  It states, in
pertinent part, that the SPD code of KFS was the appropriate code to assign
to Soldiers separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation
635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  The SPD/RE Code Cross
Reference Table indicates that RE-4 is the proper code to assign members
separated with SPD code KFS.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that the RE code entry on his DD Form 214
should be changed to "NA" based on the ADRB case directive was carefully
considered. However, by law and regulation, the ADRB does not have the
authority to change an RE code unless it votes to change the authority and
reason for discharge, which it did not do in this case.  The "NA" entry on
the ADRB case directive indicates an RE code decision by the ADRB was not
applicable in this case, it did not mean the RE code entry on the
applicant's DD Form 214 should by changed to "NA".

2.  By regulation, RE-4 is the proper reentry code to assign members
separated under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in
lieu of trial by court-martial, and who are assigned an SPD code of KFS.

3.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was separated under the
provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by
court-martial.  It also shows that based on the authority and reason for
his discharge, he was assigned a SPD code of KFS.  Further, the ADRB voted
not to change the authority and reason for his separation.  Therefore, the
RE-4 code he was assigned at the time of his discharge was and remains
valid, and it would not be appropriate to change it at this time.

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

__KLW __  __CAD__  __EJF___  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.




                                  ____Kenneth L. Wright_____
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060012338                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/03/27                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |2004/04/14                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 C10                          |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |In Lieu of C-M                          |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schwartz                            |
|ISSUES         1.       |100.0300                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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