RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        3 April 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20060013883


      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      |
|     |Ms. Deyon D. Battle               |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John Infante                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Susan Powers                  |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Qawly Sabree                  |     |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 discharge be upgraded and
correction of appropriate military records to show a reentry eligibility
(RE) code which would allow reenlistment.  In effect, this constitutes a
request for removal or waiver of those disqualifications which preclude
reenlistment.

2.  The applicant states that he really wants to be a part of the military
and that he will do anything to make his dream come true.  He states that
he has spoken to member of the National Guard and that they will be more
than glad to accept him as long as his RE code is changed to RE-3.

3.  The applicant provides a letter addressed to him from the White House,
Acting Director of Presidential Correspondence, dated 11 April 2005; a
letter addressed to him from a senator's office dated 10 August 2005; a
letter addressed to him from the Office of the Vice President, Special
Assistant to the vice President for Correspondence, dated 18 July 2006; and
two letters dated 13 April 2002 and 23 April 2002, notifying his family
members that he was absent without leave (AWOL).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  On 10 July 2001, the applicant enlisted in the Army in Miami, Florida,
for 4 years, in the pay grade of E-1.  Upon completion of his training he
was promoted to the pay grade of E-2 on 10 January 2002.

2.  The applicant went AWOL on 3 April 2002 and he remained absent in
desertion until he was apprehended and confined by civil authorities on
15 June 2004, on the charge of domestic violence.  He appeared in a civil
court in Miami, Florida, on 29 June 2004 and he was given credit for time
served.  He returned to military control on 29 June 2004.

3.  On 12 July 2004, the applicant was notified that charges were pending
against him for being AWOL from 3 April 2002 until 15 June 2004.  He
acknowledged receipt of the notification and after consulting with counsel,
he submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of
trial by court-martial.



4.  The appropriate authority approved the request for discharge on 14 July
2004. Accordingly, on 21 July 2004, the applicant was discharged under
other than honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-
martial.  He had completed only 9 months and 4 days of net active service
and he had 803 of lost time due to AWOL.  He was assigned an RE-4 code.

5.  On 14 September 2005, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the
applicant's request for an upgrade of his Discharge.

6.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
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
submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial
by court-martial.  The request may be submitted at any time after charges
have been preferred and must include the individual's admission of guilt.
Although an honorable or general discharge is authorized, a discharge under
other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

7.  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 prescribes basic eligibility for prior service
applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE
codes, including RA RE codes.

8.  RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but
the disqualification is waivable.  A waiting period of 2 years from
separation is required before a waiver may be submitted.  RE-4 applies to
persons with a
non-waivable disqualification.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was properly assigned an RE code based on his reason for
separation.

2.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were
appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  He submitted a request for discharge under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, chapter 10.  He was furnished an RE-4 code in
accordance with the applicable regulation and based on his overall service
record.

4.  The applicant's contentions have been noted.  However, the evidence of
record shows that the he spent more time AWOL than he did serving in the
military.  The fact that he now desires to enlist in the National Guard is
not a sufficient justification for changing his RE code or upgrading his
discharge.

5.  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 this requirement.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JI  ___  ___SP __  ___QS __  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 Infante________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20060013883                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070403                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |UOTHC                                   |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |20040721                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |CHAPTER 10                              |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  1021 |100.0000/ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS         |
|2.  4                   |100.0300/RE CODE                        |
|3.  651                 |144.6300/PROLONGED AWOL/DESERTION       |
|4.  689                 |144.7000/DISCHARGE FTGOS                |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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