RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           29 January 2004                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003086478

	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. Paul Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	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 that his reentry (RE) code of RE-4 be upgraded to "standards of reenlistment.”

2.  The applicant states he has exhausted all administrative means to upgrade his RE code.  He states that he is attempting to reenlist in the Reserve.

3.  The applicant provides no evidence or documents.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  The applicant’s military records are not available to the Board.  This case is being considered using reconstructed records, which primarily consist of an incomplete paper copy of his PERMS (Personnel Electronic Records Management System) records and the official Record of Trial of his court-martial.

2.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 October 1998 for a period of 4 years.  He successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 88M1P, Motor Transport Operator.  He was then assigned to the 618th Engineer Company, 307th Engineer Battalion, Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

3.  On 15 May 2001, the applicant was convicted by a General Court-Martial of failing to go to his place of duty on 28 September 2000; two specifications of being derelict in the performance of duty on 28 August and 25 September 2000; forging a signature on 8 August 2000; mail fraud on 8 August 2000; wire fraud on 8 August 2000; being absent without leave (AWOL) from 8 February to 8 March 2001; and of uttering worthless checks between 1 December 2000 to on/about 27 January 2001.  The sentence included a bad conduct discharge, confinement for 30 months, and reduction to pay grade E-1.  The conviction underwent the appellate review process.

4.  On 24 June 2002, the applicant requested withdrawal of his case from appellate review.  On 2 July 2002, the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals granted his request.

5.  On 13 September 2002, the applicant was separated with a bad conduct discharge under the provisions of chapter 3, Army Regulation (AR) 635-200 by reason of court-martial.  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows he was credited with 2 years, 9 months, and 13 days of active Federal service.  He had 244 days of lost time.  He was awarded the Army Service Ribbon.

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.  AR 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 not qualified for continued Army service.  Soldiers discharged under chapter 3 of AR 635-200 are given an RE-4 code.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no error or injustice in this case.  The applicant was properly assigned an RE code of RE-4 based upon his court-martial conviction and the issuance of a punitive discharge.

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

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__rvo___  __wtm___  __kyf___  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.

		Raymond V. O'Connor, Jr.
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003086478	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20040129	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	BCD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	20020913	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, Chap 3	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.0300	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.