RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           13 JANUARY 2004                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003091406

	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	
	Ms. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Lana E. McGlynn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Mr. Patrick H. McGann, Jr.		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 correction of his Reentry (RE) Code.

2.  The applicant states that his RE Code of 4 prevents him from returning to military service.  He states that he was told that he would be able to return to military service between 6 months and 2 years after his “other than honorable conditions” discharge which he received in February 2002.  He states that when he recently contacted a recruiter he was told he would not be able to enlist because of his RE-4.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his separation document in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 

1.  Records available to the Board indicate that the applicant entered active duty for a period of 4 years on 2 August 2000.  He was 21 years old at the time of enlistment and had 11 years of formal education.

2.  On 22 October 2000, while undergoing training at Fort Benning, Georgia, the applicant departed AWOL (absent without leave).  He was dropped from the rolls of the Army as a deserter in November 2000 and on 13 August 2001 he was apprehended by civilian authorities in Pomona City, California, and returned to military control.

3.  When charges were preferred, the applicant consulted with counsel and voluntarily requested discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  His request acknowledged he understood the nature and consequences of the under other than honorable conditions discharge which he might receive.  He indicated he understood he could be denied some or all veterans' benefits as a result of his discharge and that he may be deprived of rights and benefits as a veteran under both Federal and State law.  He did not submit any statements on his own behalf.

4.  On 24 August 2001, while his request for discharge was pending finalization, the applicant was placed in an excess leave status at his request.

5.  The applicant’s request for discharge was approved and on 25 February 2002 the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, in lieu of trial by court-martial.  His separation document indicates that he received an RE Code of 4.

6.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial.  A discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

7.  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 United States Army Reserve.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribed basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of armed forces RE codes, including RA RE codes.

8.  RE-4 applies to individuals who were separated from their last period of service with a non-waivable disqualification.  Soldiers who were involuntarily separated from their last term of service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, are ineligible for reenlistment and receive an RE-4.

9.  Army Regulation 601-210 also advises that RE codes may be changed only if they are determined to be administratively incorrect and that there is no requirement to change a RE code in order to qualify for enlistment.  Paragraph 
4-25 states that individual's whose discharge was the result of desertion, are ineligible for enlistment and are not authorized waivers.  That regulation also states that an individual separated from any United States Armed Forces, or its Reserve Component, whose separation documents contain a disqualifying RE Code will not be considered for waivers to reenlist.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence confirms that the applicant’s RE Code was assigned based on the fact that he was not qualified for continuous service at the time of his separation.  His voluntary discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 10, disqualified him from reenlisting.  

2.  The applicant’s RE Code is appropriate considering the basis for his separation, and there is no basis to correct the existing code.  The fact that he is unable to return to military service is not sufficient justification to change the applicant’s RE Code.

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy that requirement.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__LEM __  __RWA  _  __PHM  _  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.

		____Lana E. McGlynn____
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003091406	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20040113	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR . . . . .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.03	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.