RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         4 April 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050009148


      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             |
|     |Mr. Joseph A. Adriance            |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. James E. Anderholm            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Jose A. Martinez              |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette R. McCants           |     |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 her reentry (RE) code.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that when the Army Discharge Review
Board (ADRB) upgraded her discharge from a general, under honorable
conditions discharge (GD) to an honorably discharge (HD), her RE- 3 code
should have been removed also.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentary evidence in support of
her application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
that  occurred on 4 August 1982, when her discharge was upgraded by the
ADRB.  The application submitted in this case is dated 11 June 2005.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  The applicant's record shows that she enlisted in the Regular Army and
entered active duty on 13 November 1978.  She was trained in, awarded, and
served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 76Y (Supply Specialist) and
the highest rank she attained while serving on active duty was private
first class (PFC).

4.  On 27 February 1980, the applicant was separated with a GD after
completing a total of 1 year, 3 months and 15 days of active military
service.  The separation document (DD Form 214) she was issued confirms she
was separated under the provisions of paragraph 5-31h(2), Expeditious
Discharge Program, Army Regulation 635-200.  It also shows that based on
the authority and reason for her separation, she was assigned a Separation
Program Indicator (SPD) code of JGH and an RE code of RE-3.

5.  On 4 August 1982, after considering all the evidence and hearing the
applicant's testimony, the ADRB found that the applicant's discharge was
proper, but not equitable.  As a result, it concluded it would be
appropriate to upgrade the characterization of the applicant’s service to
honorable.  However, it voted unanimously not to change the authority and
reason for the applicant’s separation, which it found was proper and
equitable.

6.  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 US 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.  RE-4 applies to persons who are permanently
disqualified for continued Army service.

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.  At the time of
the applicant's separation, it stated, in pertinent part, that the SPD code
of JGH was the appropriate code to assign to Soldiers separated under the
provisions of the paragraph 5-31h(2), Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of
Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP).  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table
in effect at the time provided for assignment either RE-3 for members
separated with this SPD code.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that her RE code of RE-3 should have been
changed or removed in conjunction with the ADRB's upgrade of the
characterization of her service was carefully considered.  However, there
is insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant's separation processing
was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation and that her
SPD and RE codes were properly assigned based on the authority and reason
for her separation.  All requirements of law and regulation were met, and
the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation
process.

3.  Although the ADRB voted to upgrade the applicant’s discharge to
honorable for equity reasons, it concluded that the authority and reason
for the applicant’s separation was proper and equitable, and it voted not
to change it.  As a result, the ADRB action clearly does not support a
change to the RE-3 code that was properly assigned to the applicant upon
her separation.

4.  By regulation, the RE-3 code assigned the applicant was the proper code
to assign members separating under the provisions of the paragraph 5-
31h(2),  Army Regulation 635-200, under the EDP.  As a result, the RE-3
code assigned the applicant was and still is appropriate based on the
authority and reason for her separation.

5.  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.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 4 August 1982, the date of the ADRB
review of her case.  Therefore, the time for her to file a request for
correction of any error or injustice expired on 3 August 1985.  However,
she failed to file within the 3-year statute of limitations and has not
provided a compelling explanation or evidence to show that it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse failure to timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___JEA  _  __JAM __  ___JRM _  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that 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.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




                                  _____James E. Anderholm_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON






                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050009148                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/04/04                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1980/02/27                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200 C5                           |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |EDP                                     |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Chun                                |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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