PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF

	BOARD DATE:            17 July 2003                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:    AR2003086135

	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	
	Mr. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Ms. Regan K. Smith		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell 		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)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests, in effect, that his reentry (RE) code of RE-4 be changed to RE-1.  

3.  The applicant states, in effect, that a change in his RE code of 4 to RE-1 would allow him to reenlist in the Army.  He states that his case was reviewed by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), but he did not request a change to his RE code at that time.  

4.  The applicant’s military records show that on 13 November 1989, he entered active duty in the Regular Army for 4 years.  He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 63S (Heavy Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).  

5.  The applicant’s records confirm that the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty was specialist/E-4 (SPC/E-4), and that he earned the following awards during his active duty tenure:  Army Commendation Medal; Army Achievement Medal (1st Oak Leaf Cluster); Army Good Conduct Medal; National Defense Service Medal; Humanitarian Service Medal; and Southwest Asia Service Medal with 3 bronze service stars.

6.  On 12 October 1993, while assigned to Fort Devens, Massachusetts, the applicant was notified by his commander that separation action was being initiated to eliminate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, by reason of Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure.  

7.  The applicant’s unit commander stated that the basis for the separation action was the applicant’s continued use of alcohol and an alcohol related incident less than two months after being released from Track II of the Alcohol/Drug Education Program.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation action notification and submitted a statement in his own behalf providing the reasons he believed he should receive an honorable discharge.  

8.  The separation action was approved by the appropriate authority and on 
20 October 1993, the applicant was honorably discharged from the Army after completing 3 years, 11 months, and 21 days of active military service.

9.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate Of Release Or Discharge From Active Duty) issued to the applicant on the date of his separation confirms that the authority for his discharge was chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200 and the reason for his separation was Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure.  It also verifies that based on the authority and reason for his discharge, he was assigned a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JPD and a RE code of RE-4.

10.  The applicant submitted a request to the ADRB requesting a change to the narrative reason for his discharge.  On 13 March 1997, the ADRB determined that the applicant’s discharge had been improper because he was not properly enrolled in an alcohol rehabilitation program at the time the separation action was initiated.   As a result, the ADRB changed the authority for the applicant’s discharge to paragraph 5-3, Army Regulation 635-200, and the narrative reason Secretarial Authority.  There is no indication that the ADRB addressed or took any action in regard to the applicant’s assigned RE-4 code.  

11.  The DD Form 214 prepared and issued as a result of the ADRB action shows that based on the new authority and reason for discharge, the applicant was assigned a SPD code of JFF; however, his RE code remained RE-4. 

12.  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 JFF is the appropriate code for the applicant based on the guidance provided in this regulation for soldiers separating under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200, paragraph 5-3, by reason of Secretarial Authority.  The regulation provides that the Department Agency that directed separation under these provisions would also provide the RE code.

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that his RE-4 code should be upgraded, and it finds this claim has merit.  

2.  The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was originally honorably discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, by reason of Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure and he was assigned an RE code of 
RE-4.  

3.  By regulation, the Department Agency that directs separation under paragraph 5-3, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of Secretarial Authority, will also provide the RE code.  

4.  The evidence of record further confirms that in 1997, the ADRB determined that the applicant’s discharge was improper.  At that time, it directed that the authority for his discharge be changed to paragraph 5-3, Army Regulation 
635-200, and that the narrative reason for his separation be changed to Secretarial Authority.  However, the ADRB failed to establish a corresponding
RE code based on its change to the authority and reason for the applicant’s discharge as is required by regulation.  

5.  In the absence of the RE code determination by the ADRB, the Board concludes it would be appropriate to change the applicant’s RE code to RE-1 at this time.  This change is based on the change to the authority and reason for the applicant’s discharge directed by the ADRB in 1997 and on the lack of any evidence in the record showing other factors that would have disqualified the applicant from reenlistment at the time of his discharge.  

6.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing the individual concerned was issued a reentry code of RE-1 and by  providing him a corrected separation document that reflects this change. 

BOARD VOTE:  

_RKS__  __JM___  __JHL    __  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

		Joann H. Langston
		  CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003086135	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED		
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.4 	100.0300	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.		

0