MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:  11 February 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999026696

	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. Vic Whitney		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Margaret K. Patterson		Chairperson	
	Mr. George D. Paxson		Member	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern		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:  Correction of appropriate military records to show a reentry eligibility (RE) code which would allow reenlistment.  In effect, this constitutes a request for removal or waiver of those disqualifications that preclude reenlistment.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was discharged as an alcohol rehabilitation failure which was false.  He was required to enroll in the alcohol rehabilitation program because he had made unauthorized charges of alcohol on his government American Express card.  He left the program due to frustration because he did not have an alcohol problem.  He was considered a rehabilitation failure when all he had done was improperly use his credit card.  His unit commander had also mentioned rumors that he had a prior vehicle accident and had been intoxicated at work, which was not true.  He has never been disciplined for misuse of alcohol before.  He received a compassionate reassignment to Texas when he became a single parent in 1994.  He wants to continue to serve but cannot because of his RE code.

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

He enlisted and entered active duty on 28 July 1987.  After completion of infantry and basic airborne training he was assigned to Alaska.  He reenlisted on 27 November 1991 and was promoted to grade E-5 effective 1 March 1993.

A 9 January 1996 memorandum from the director of the Army Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) states that the applicant was declared a rehabilitation failure by his unit commander.  The date of his entry in ADAPCP is not in the available record.  In an undated memorandum the unit commander recommended separation of the applicant for refusal to cooperate in ADAPCP.  The commander noted that further rehabilitative efforts were not practical.  He had no record of prior trials by court-martial or punishment under Article 15, UCMJ.

On 27 February 1996, after consultation with counsel, the applicant submitted a conditional waiver of his right to consideration of his case by a separation board if he was granted an honorable discharge.  The separation authority approved the request and the conditional waiver.  He directed separation with an honorable characterization of service without transfer to the USAR.

Effective 14 March 1996 the applicant was discharged in grade E-5 under authority of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9.  He had 8 years, 7 months, and 14 days creditable service and no lost time.  His narrative reason for separation is shown as alcohol rehabilitation failure with a separation code (SPD) of JPD and an RE code of RE-4.

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 also 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.

The regulation in effect at the time provided that the RE code associated with the SPD of JPD for alcohol rehabilitation failure would be RE-4.  It further provided that RE-4 applied to persons separated from their last period of service with a non-waivable disqualification for reenlistment.

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 applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  The applicant was separated and assigned a reentry code in accordance with regulations then in effect.

2.  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.  He provides no evidence to support his contention that he was erroneously enrolled and then appropriately left the program.

3.  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

_MP___  __GP____  ___TR___  DENY APPLICATION

						Karl F. Schneider
				     Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999026996	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000211	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.03	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.