RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:         13 April 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050013485


      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. Richard T. Dunbar             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Patrick H. McGann             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. David K. Hassenritter         |     |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, an upgrade of her reentry (RE) code.


2.  The applicant states, in effect, she would like her RE code upgraded so
that she may be eligible to reenlist.  She states that she was young and
had a difficult time during her first military tour of duty; however, she
believes she would now be an asset to the Armed Forces.

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 17 January 1996, the date of her separation.  The
application submitted in this case is dated 31 August 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 8 September 1984.  She was trained in, awarded and
served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 95B (Military Police), and
the highest rank she attained while serving on active duty was private/E-2
(PV2).

4.  On 17 January 1996, the applicant was honorably separated after
completing a total of 1 year, 4 months and 10 days of active military
service.  The separation document (DD Form 214) she was issued confirms she
was separated under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200,
by reason of unsatisfactory performance.  It also shows that based on the
authority and reason for her separation, she was assigned a Separation
Program Designator (SPD) code of JHJ and an RE code of RE-4.

5.  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 of RE-3 for members separated
with this SPD code.

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, and RE-3 applies to persons who
are ineligible for reenlistment, but whose disqualification is waviable.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for an upgrade of her RE code was carefully
considered and found to have partial merit.  By regulation, members
separated under the provisions of chapter 13, Army Regulation 635-200, by
reason of unsatisfactory performance receive a SPD code of JHJ and an RE
code of RE-3.

2.  The evidence of record in this case confirms the applicant was
appropriately assigned a SPD code of JHJ based on the authority and reason
for her separation.  However, she was improperly assigned an RE-4 code,
when in fact she should have received an RE-3 code.  Therefore, it would be
appropriate to correct the applicant's record to show she was assigned an
RE-3 code at the time of her separation.

3.  The applicant is advised that an upgrade beyond the RE-3 code
correction outlined in the preceding paragraph would not be appropriate and
is not being recommended.  However, this does not mean she is ineligible
for reenlistment.   While RE-3 does apply to persons who are not considered
fully qualified for reentry or continuous service; there are provisions
that provide for a waiver of the disqualification.  If she desires to
reenlist, he should contact a local recruiter to determine her eligibility.
 Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs
of the Army at the time, and are required to process
RE code waivers.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

___RTD _  __PHM__  __DKH__  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to
warrant a recommendation for partial relief and to excuse failure to timely
file.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army
records of the individual concerned be corrected by showing she was
assigned an RE-3 code upon her 17 January 1996 separation in lieu of the
current RE-4 code; and by providing her a correction to her separation
document that reflects this change.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is
insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result,
the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to
an upgrade of her RE code beyond the RE-3 code recommended in paragraph 1
above.




                            _____Richard T. Dunbar   __
                                      CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050013485                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |2006/04/13                              |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |1996/01/17                              |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200                              |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |Unsat Perf                              |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT PARTIAL                           |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Mr. Schneider                           |
|ISSUES         1.  04   |100.0300                                |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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