MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           1 December 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999014568

	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. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		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, an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge and that his reentry eligibility (RE) code be removed.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he had a perfect record until he was falsely accused. 

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

On 23 July 1979, the applicant enlisted into the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B10 (Infantryman).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-4. 

On 14 June 1982, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $50 pay, 1 day restriction and extra duty.  

On 11 August 1983, the applicant accepted an NJP, under Article, UCMJ, for two occasions of failure to go to his appointed place of duty at the prescribed time.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $50 pay, a reduction to pay grade
E-2 (suspended until 10 September 1983), 7 days restriction and 14 days extra duty.  On 6 September 1983, the original NJP given on 11 August 1983 was vacated.  The NJP was found to be improper.  

On 30 August 1983, the applicant was enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP).  His referral was based on an investigation/apprehension referral for Marijuana possession.  A treatment plan was devised, with the approval of the applicant, which consisted of individual and group counseling and urinalysis testing.  

On 22 November 1983, the applicant’s record indicated that he tested positive for drugs.  However, the particulars are missing from his files. 

On 14 December 1983, the applicant accepted an NJP, under Article, UCMJ, for the wrongful possession of some amount of Marijuana.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $200 pay per month for 2 months ($100 pay per month for 
2 months was suspended until 6 July 1984) and 45 days restriction and extra duty.

On 20 December 1983, the commander received a Rehabilitation Summary Letter from the ADAPCP in reference to the applicant’s progress in the rehabilitation program.  The letter stated in effect, that the applicant appeared to cooperate with the program.  He attended five individual counseling sessions and seven group counseling sessions.  The letter further stated that he did not appear to focus on his own behavior or its consequences.  Instead he tended to blame others for what happened to him.  In addition he denied substance use or abuse, but at least on one occasion, it was proven that he did use Marijuana.  After consulting with ADAPCP staff, the commander determined that the applicant received the maximum benefits from rehabilitation efforts and that the applicant clearly demonstrated deviance to the degree that further rehabilitation efforts in the military environment would not result in full effective duty. 

On 11 January 1984, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure.  The commander’s recommendation was based on the NJP that he received for possession of Marijuana, for a positive urinalysis and action, which indicates that he could not be rehabilitated for productive military service.  The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him, he waived consideration, personal appearance, and representation before a board of officers.  He submitted a statement in his behalf. He stated in effect, that he wanted a delay in the final decision on the chapter 9 discharge because he was in the process of getting his high school diploma; that he had some medical problems and that he knows he made a few mistakes but not as many to warrant this type of discharge.  He further stated that inaccurate charges were brought against him, for the possession of Marijuana; that the Marijuana was not found in his possession and that he would like to finish his second term of service. 

On 26 January 1984, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a general discharge.  On 2 February 1984, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-3, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9 (Drug Abuse-Rehabilitation Failure) with a general discharge.  He had completed 4 years, 6 months and 10 days of creditable active service.  He was given a reentry code of RE-3 and RE-3C.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.   Chapter 9 contains the authority and outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse.  A member who has been referred to ADAPCP for alcohol/drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical. 

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-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable.  Certain persons who have received nonjudicial punishment are so disqualified, as are persons with bars to reenlistment, and those discharged under the provisions of chapters 9, 10, 13, and 14 of Army Regulation 635-200.

RE-3C applies to persons who have completed more than 4 months service who do not meet the basic eligibility pay grade requirements.

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.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant’s discharge and assigned RE code were accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations then in effect, with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to significantly jeopardize his rights.

3.  There is no basis for removal of the RE code from the applicant's record. 

4.  In view of the circumstances in this case, the assigned RE code was and still is appropriate. 

5.  Therefore in view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s requests.

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

__mkp___  __aao___  __eja___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999014568	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	19991201	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19840202	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, chapter 9 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A69.00	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.6900	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.