MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OFV.

		BOARD DATE:            9 September 2003                  
		DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2003088753

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Mr. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Chairperson	
	Mr. Walter T. Morrison		Member	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan 		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                            records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	                 advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that his reentry (RE) code of RE-4 be changed to a more favorable RE code.  

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

He served on active duty for 11 months and 15 days, from 5 July 2000 to 
29 August 2001.  He was trained in, awarded, and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman).  The highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was private/E-2, and his records document no other acts of valor, significant achievement, or service warranting special recognition.

The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant on the date of his separation confirms that the authority for his discharge was Chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, and the reason for his separation was in lieu of trial by court-martial. This document also verifies that based on the authority and reason for his discharge, the applicant was assigned a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of KFS and an RE code of RE-4.

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, and it specifies that the RE-4 applies to persons separated from their last period of service with a non-waivable disqualification. 

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.  The SPD code of KFS was the appropriate code for the applicant based on the guidance provided in this regulation for soldiers separating under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  Additionally, the SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table establishes RE-4 as the proper reentry code to assign to soldiers who are separated under in lieu of trial by court-martial regulatory provisions.  

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The Board notes the applicant’s requests that his RE code of RE-4 should be changed to a more favorable RE code.  However, the Board finds no evidentiary basis to warrant the requested relief.

2.  The Board notes that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 10, Army Regulation 635-200, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  As a result, he was properly assigned an RE code of RE-4 in accordance with the applicable regulatory guidance.  

3.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the Board finds the RE-4 code was appropriately assigned based on the authority and reason for the applicant’s discharge, and the basis for this assignment has not changed.  The applicant has failed to show any error related to the RE code assignment.  Therefore, the Board concludes that there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for changing it at this time.

4.  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.

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

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

WTM___  __TAP__  __SLP__  DENY APPLICATION

		    Carl W. S. Chun
	 	     Director, Army Board for Correction
     of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003088753	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED		
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 4	100.0300	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.