RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        28 August 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070003785


      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. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Paul M. Smith                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Rodney E. Barber              |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Rowland C. Heflin             |     |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 (RE) code be
changed from RE-3 to RE-1.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he is grateful the Army Discharge
Review Board (ADRB) directed a change to the characterization and reason
for his discharge, and although it upgraded his RE code to RE-3, he feels
as though he should not be limited in his attempt to reenter the military,
the Coast Guard specifically, and now requests an upgrade of his RE code.


3.  The applicant provides a self-authored letter he submitted through a
Member of Congress (Congressional Inquiry) and the ADRB Case Report and
Directive 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 12 November 2003.  He was trained in and awarded
military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman) and the highest
rank he attained while serving on active duty was specialist (SPC).

2.  On 10 March 2005, 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 on or about 6 December
2004 through on or about 10 January 2005.  Duty Status documents on file
confirm he was actually carried in an AWOL status for a total of 54 days
through 30 January 2005.

3.  On 11 March 2005, after consulting with legal counsel and being advised
of the basis of the contemplated court-martial and its effects, the
applicant voluntarily requested discharge in lieu of trial by court-
martial.

4.  On 13 March 2005, the separation authority approved the applicant's
request and directed that he receive an under other than honorable
conditions (UOTHC) discharge and that he be reduced to the lowest enlisted
grade.  On 6 May 2005, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The
separation document he was issued confirms he was separated under the
provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by
court-martial, and that he was assigned a Separation Program Designator
(SPD) code of KFS and an RE-4 code based on this authority and reason for
separation.
5.  On 7 February 2007, the ADRB determined the applicant's discharge was
inequitable based on the applicant's overall record of service, and it
recommended the characterization of his service be upgraded to fully
honorable. It also voted to change the authority for the applicant's
discharge to Paragraph
5-3, Army Regulation 635-200 and the reason to Secretarial Authority, which
resulted in a change of his SPD code to KFF.  The ADRB also elected to
change the applicant's RE code from RE-4 to RE-3, and to restore his grade
to SPC.

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.  RE-3
applies to persons who have a waivable 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 KFS is 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.

8.  The SPD code regulation identifies the SPD code of KFF as the proper
code to assign members separated under the provisions of Paragraph 5-3, by
reason of Secretarial Authority.  The RA code assigned to members separated
under these provisions is decided by the Department of the Army element
directing the separation.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Notwithstanding the ADRB decision to upgrade the characterization of
the applicant's service and to change the authority and reason for his
discharge for equity reasons, the evidence of record confirms the
applicant's initial separation processing was accomplished in accordance
with the applicable regulation.  All requirements of law and regulation
were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout
the separation process.

2.  The ADRB action to upgrade the applicant's discharge was a matter of
equity based on the applicant's overall record of service.  This action
does not alter the fact that the applicant committed the misconduct that
resulted in his initial discharge and as result, the RE-3 code assigned by
the ADRB was appropriate and remains valid.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___PMS    __REB __  __RCH __  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.




                                  _____Paul M. Smith_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070003785                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2007/08/28                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |2006/05/05                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |In Lieu of C-M                          |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.       |100.0300                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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