MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           10 July 2001
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001053160

	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. Joseph A. Adriance 		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Karol A. Kennedy		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin		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 the narrative reason for his discharge and his reentry (RE) code be changed.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, in 1999 after having a few beers, while off-duty on a weekend he was called and told to report for duty.  This resulted in his being counseled by his chain of command in regard to his drinking.  He asks that his RE code be changed from RE-4 to RE-3 so that he would be allowed to return to duty.  He claims that he never had an alcohol related incident nor was he given a blood alcohol content (BAC) test.  He was advised that if he appealed the separation action they would find a way to send him to prison. 

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

He initially entered the Regular Army on 15 September 1988 and reenlisted for the enlistment under review on 11 August 1995.  During his last enlistment he was performing duties in military occupational specialty (MOS) 88M 
(Motor Transport Operator).

The applicant was command referred to the Community Counseling Center, Grafenwoehr, Germany for alcohol related problems and on 23 August 1999, he was enrolled in the Army Drug and Alcohol Prevention Control Program (ADAPCP).  

On 6 December 1999, the applicant accepted NJP for being incapacitated for the proper performance of his duty due to an overindulgence in intoxicating liquor and his punishment for this offense included a suspended reduction to specialist/E-4 (SPC/E-4).  This suspended reduction was vacated and the applicant was reduced based on his failure to report to his appointed place of duty on 22 December 1999.  

On 18 January 2000, the applicant’s unit commander in consultation with the ADAPCP, Clinical Director declared the applicant an ADAPCP rehabilitation failure.  

On 8 June 2000, the applicant accepted NJP for unlawfully killing a German national by striking him while driving a motor vehicle in a negligent manner and for wrongfully making a false statement under oath.  His punishment for these offenses included a reduction to private first class/E-3 (PFC/E-3).

On 18 July 2000, the applicant was notified by his unit commander that separation action was being initiated against him under the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of alcohol abuse-rehabilitation failure, and that he was recommending the applicant receive a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

The applicant was advised of his rights and consulted legal counsel.  After being advised of the impact of the contemplated separation action by counsel, the applicant waived his right to consideration of his case before an administrative separation board and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 

On 18 August 2000, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation efforts, approved the separation action, and directed the applicant receive an honorable discharge.  On 22 September 2000, he was discharged accordingly. 

The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant on the date of his discharge verifies that he received an honorable discharge, in the rank of PFC/E-3, after completing a total of 12 years and 8 days of active military service.  This document also confirms that he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure, and that he was assigned a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JPD and an RE code of RE-4.  

On 14 February 2001, the Army Discharge Review Board denied the applicant’s request for a change to the narrative reason for his separation and found the reason for his discharge was both proper and equitable.  

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. 

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 JPD was the appropriate code for the applicant based on the guidance provided in Army Regulation 635-5-1 for soldiers separating under the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure.  In addition, Table 2-3 (SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table), Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) establishes RE-4 as the proper reentry code to assign to soldiers separated for this reason.

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.  Notwithstanding the applicant’s contentions, in view of the circumstances of this case, the Board finds the narrative reason for the applicant’s discharge and his RE code were properly assigned in accordance with applicable law and regulations in effect at the time.  

2.  The applicant’s prior honorable service was appropriately recognized with the honorable characterization of service awarded at the time and it is clear that he was processed for separation only after rehabilitation efforts had failed. 

3.  Further, the Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Thus, the Board concludes that relief is not warranted in this case. 

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

__KAK__  __RWA__  __KWL__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001053160	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2001/07/10	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	2000/09/22	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 C9	
DISCHARGE REASON	Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  189	110.0000	
                      2.  4	100.0300	
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.