MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           3 December 2002
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002070395

	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	
	Ms. Nancy L. Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. James E. Anderholm		Member	
	Ms. Charmane Collins		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:  That his reenlistment (RE) code be changed from   RE 3 to RE 1.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he deeply regrets the disgrace he heaped upon himself, his family, and his country.  He has changed his ways and has been and always will be on the path of the straight and narrow.  He does not want to have to explain to his son and daughter that their father was discharged for drug abuse rehabilitation failure.  As supporting evidence he provides his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214, and a 1983 newspaper article concerning his completing basic training.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 June 1983.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63Y (Track Vehicle Mechanic).  

On 1 May 1984, the applicant was command referred to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP).  He was placed in Track        I and released on 19 June 1984.  

On 3 May 1984, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for wrongfully possessing and using marijuana.  

An 8 November 1984 letter from the Clinical Director, ADAPCP indicates the applicant was command referred to ADAPCP for the second time on 6 November 1984.

On 20 November 1984, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for wrongfully possessing some amount of marijuana and for wrongfully using marijuana.  

On 20 November 1984, a mental status evaluation found the applicant to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in the proceedings and to be mentally responsible.

The applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.  

On 6 December 1984, a bar to reenlistment was initiated on the applicant.  His two Article 15s and several counseling forms were cited as the reasons for the action.  The bar was approved on 12 December 1984.

On 6 December 1984, the applicant's commander recommended his separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse - rehabilitation failure.  His commander noted that the Clinical Director of the Community Counseling Center determined the applicant's potential for rehabilitation was poor and recommended administrative action to eliminate him from the Army.

The applicant was advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action.  He did not submit statements in his own behalf. 

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

On 21 February 1985, the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge, in pay grade E-2, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9 for drug abuse - rehabilitation failure.  He had completed 1 year, 7 months, and      22 days of creditable active service.  He was given RE codes of 3 and 3C.

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 U.S. 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.

At the time, RE code 3C applied to soldiers who did not meet the reenlistment grade and service criteria.  At the time, an individual was not eligible for enlistment if they were last separated in pay grade E-2 with total active service of more than 1 year.  RE code 3 applied (and currently applies) to persons who were not qualified for continued Army service but the disqualification was waivable.  

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 this requirement.

2.  The applicant was given the correct RE codes when he was discharged on  21 February 1985.  He was given RE code 3 because he was barred from reenlistment.  He was given RE code 3C because he separated as an E-2 with more than 1 year of active service.  These disqualifications were waivable.

3.  The Board is cognizant of the applicant's good post-service conduct and the embarrassment his explanation of his RE codes to his children may cause.  However, these factors do not warrant granting the relief requested.  

4.  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

__ FNE  _  __JEA___  ___CC__  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002070395	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	2002/12/03	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.03	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.