RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        26 June 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060017062


      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.

|     |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano          |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Luis Almodova                 |     |Senior Analyst       |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Anderholm            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jerome L. Pionk               |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette B. McPherson         |     |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, he is making this request to correct
an error in field 27, Reentry Code, on his issued DD Form 214 (Certificate
of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).  Currently, there is a number 4
in this field, which at the time of his separation, and still today, is
incorrect.  This field, as prescribed in Army Regulation (AR) 635-5,
chapter 2-4h, AR 601-210, chapter 4-13a, AR 601-210, chapter 4-14c, and AR
601-210, Table 3-1 should read as a 3.

3.  The applicant continues that his purpose, in effect, is to ensure the
correctness of his military personnel records.  Despite how justified he
felt he was at the time to leave military service without authorization,
he understands this was not the correct solution to what problems he
thought he had in his personal life.  He wanted to have a career in the
military since he was little; he never intended on being absent without
leave (AWOL) for so long.  His actions were immature and not thought out
when all he wanted to do was to vent and change the terms of his service
agreement.  He states, he does know; however, he is older and more mature
and has greatly considered his actions and how much worse things could
have been.  These are action that under no circumstance would ever happen
again.  He adds that he is a good-hearted American, a good person, and
that he understands his mistakes and does learn from them.

4.  In justification of this request, AR 601-210, Table 3-1, describes
Reentry Eligibility Codes.  He asks the Board to please note that RE-4
applies to persons separated from their last period of service with a non-
waivable disqualification and RE-3 applies to a person who is not
considered fully qualified for reentry or continued service at the time of
separation, but the disqualification is waivable.

5.  He continues by stating AR 635-5, chapter 2-4h, explains that AR 601-
210 determines RA and USAR reentry codes listed on DD Form 214.  He had
two disqualifications:  lost time in service in excess of 30 days and a
voluntary separation in lieu of trial by court-martial (AR 635-200.
chapter 10).  Although they are disqualifications from reenlistment, he
adds, according to AR 601-210, chapter 4-13a and chapter 4-14c, both of
these disqualifications are waivable, one of them immediately and one
after 24 months.  As described in AR 601-210, Table 3-1, a reentry
eligibility code of 4 does not apply to him.  He does not
have non-waivable disqualifications; therefore, he asks that his DD Form
214 be amended to reflect the correct reentry eligibility code of 3.  He
summarizes his request by stating he appreciates the Board's time and
consideration in correcting this administrative error.

6.  In support of his application, the applicant provides a copy of his DD
Form 214 and a copy of extracts from Army regulations he cited in his
request to the Board.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The evidence shows the applicant enlisted in the US Army Reserve,
Delayed Entry Program, on 10 April 2002.  On 21 May 2002, he enlisted in
the Regular Army.

2.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows, in Item 11 (Primary Specialty), he
was not awarded a military occupational specialty (MOS).

3.  Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations and Campaign Ribbons
Awarded or Authorized), of his DD Form 214, shows he was not awarded any
military service awards and his record documents no acts of valor,
significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.

4.  Item 14 (Military Education), of his DD Form 214, shows he was not
credited with completion of any military training.

5.  Item 29, of the applicant's DD Form 214, show he had lost time under
Title 10, United States Code 972, for the period 29 October 2002 through 28
October 2003.

6.  On 30 October 2003, a court-martial charge was preferred against the
applicant for violating Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice
(UCMJ) for being AWOL from 29 October 2002 through 28 October 2003.  After
consulting with legal counsel, the applicant voluntarily requested
discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial.

7.  On 25 November 2003, the separation authority approved the applicant's
request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial under the
provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10.  The separation authority directed
the applicant would be furnished an under other than honorable conditions
discharge and he would be reduced to the lowest enlisted grade.

8.  The applicant was discharged on 15 December 2003.  The DD Form 214 he
was issued on his separation date shows he was separated under the
provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.
The character of the applicant's service was described as under other than
honorable conditions.  The separation code applied to the applicant's DD
Form 214 is "KFS."  A reentry code of 4 was applied to his DD Form 214.

9.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an
upgrade of his discharge.  On 14 October 2005, the ADRB determined that
based on a careful review of his application, military records, and all
other available evidence, he had been properly and equitably discharged.

10.  By law and regulation, the ADRB can only change a reentry code when
a determination is made to change the authority and reason for an
individual's discharge to Secretarial Authority, under the provisions of AR
635-200, chapter 5.  The ADRB did not do so in this case.

11.  AR 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 reentry codes, including RA RE codes.

12.  Reentry code 4 applies to individuals not qualified for continued
service due to being separated from the service with non-waivable
disqualifications such as, as an example, a person with a HQDA or a local
bar to reenlistment.

13.  Reentry code 3 applies to persons not fully qualified for continued
Army service and personnel who are discharged, but who have a
disqualification that is waivable.

14.  Paragraph 4-13.a., in this regulation, states a waiver may not be
submitted until a 24-month waiting period has elapsed since applicant was
separated or discharged from any component of the Armed Forces if the
reason was, in lieu of trial by court-martial.

15.  Paragraph 4-14.c., in this regulation, states any applicant who,
during his or her last period of service, was AWOL or had lost time of 30
days or more regardless of the type of separation or RE Code will be
required to have a waiver for reenlistment.

16.  Paragraph 4-25, in this regulation, provides a list of non-waivable
disqualifying separations or discharges.  Individuals who were last
discharged or separated from a component of a US Armed Force, with other
than an honorable discharge (including general discharge, under honorable
conditions) are included in this list.

17.  AR 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 in lieu of trial
by court-martial.

18.  AR 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) provides the specific authorities (regulatory
or directive), reasons for separating soldiers from active duty, and the
separation codes to be entered on the DD Form 214.  It states, in pertinent
part, that separation code, "KFS," is the appropriate code to assign to
Soldiers separated under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10, in lieu
of trial by court-martial.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table indicates
that RE Code 4 is the proper code to assign members separated with a
separation code, "KFS."

19.  The Separation Program Designator Code (SPD)/Reentry (RE) Code Cross
Reference Table, dated 31 March 2003, provides instructions for determining
the RE code for Active Army Soldiers and Reserve Component Soldiers.  This
cross reference table shows the SPD/RE code and a corresponding SPD/RE
code.  The SPD/RE code of "KFS" has a corresponding RE code of "4."

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence shows the applicant had extensive lost time due to AWOL.
On his return to military control, court-martial charges were brought
against him.  Rather than face a court-martial for this unauthorized
absence, he submitted a request for voluntary separation under the
provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 10, to avoid trial by court-martial.

2.  The applicant's request for discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial
was approved and the type of discharge directed and the reason for his
discharge were appropriate, considering all of the facts of the case.
3.  When discharged, the DD Form 214 he was issued showed he was discharged
under the provisions of AR 635-210, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-
martial.  The separation code "KFS" and a reentry code of 4 were applied to
his DD Form 214.

4.  The applicant's separation code, "KFS" is consistent with the reason
for his discharge.  The reentry code applied to his DD Form 214 is
consistent with the separation code; therefore, the applicant is not
entitled to a change to his reentry code.

5.  The applicant's discharge was reviewed by the ADRB and after careful
consideration of his application, his military records, and all other
available evidence, determined he had been properly and equitably
discharged.  Since the ADRB voted neither to upgrade his discharge nor to
change the characterization of his service, it took no action to change
the reentry code that was applied to his DD Form 214 at the time he was
discharged.

6.  The applicant's assessment that he does not have non-waivable
disqualifications is not correct.  Rather than be subjected to a court-
martial, he opted to submit a request for separation in lieu of court-
martial.  As part of the application and approval process, he was advised
by an attorney of his rights, the type of discharge that could be issued,
and what he could expect, in the long term.  In the justification and his
rationale why he was entitled to a change to his reentry code, it is
apparent he did not read all of AR 601-210, chapter 4.  Had he done so, he
would have become aware individuals who are discharged with an under other
than honorable conditions discharge have a non-waivable disqualification.

7.  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

___A____  ____JP__  ___JBM_  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.




                                  _____James E. Anderholm_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060017062                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070626                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |20031215                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200,Chapter 10                   |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |100.0000                                |
|2.                      |100.0300                                |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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