MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:     

	BOARD DATE:          11 SEPTEMBER 2003                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003088445

	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. Deborah L. Brantley		Senior Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Stanley Kelley		Chairperson	
	Mr. Christopher J. Prosser		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 her Reenlistment Eligibility (RE) Code and her Separation Program Designator (SPD) Code on her 1986 separation document be corrected to permit her to enlist in the Army National Guard.

APPLICANT STATES:  She was enrolled in a Drug and Alcohol Program following a May 1985 incident when she reported to work "with a hangover from the night before and was given a Breathalyzer test…."  She states that she was successfully released from the Drug and Alcohol Program in February 1986 but, following a March 1986 urinalysis, she tested positive for THC (marijuana).  She states she denied using drugs and was retested with negative results.  She states that "all of [her] urinalysis previous to the positive test and after the test were returned negative."  She states she does not deny having an alcohol problem but through treatment has redeemed herself.  She contends that she was "mustered out" of the Army "on a false positive test" and that she would like to enlist in the Army National Guard but is precluded from doing so because of her RE and SPD Codes.  In support of her request she submits a copy of her February 1986 successful release from the Army's Drug and Alcohol Program, several letters from community members attesting to her good citizenship, and copies of college grade transcripts.

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

She entered active duty on 10 August 1984 and completed training as a military policeman.  According to the copy of her release certificate from the Army's Drug and Alcohol Program, she completed the program on 28 February 1986 and received satisfactory efficiency and conduct ratings from her command.

Although documents associated with her administrative separation action were not in records available to the Board, a 19 June 1986 statement from her unit commander notes that he disqualified her from an award of the Army Good Conduct Medal and cited her approved discharge "for Drug and Alcohol Rehabilitation failure" under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, as the basis for his action.

On 1 July 1986 the applicant was honorably discharged from active duty.  Her separation document notes the narrative reason for her separation as "Drug Abuse Rehabilitation Failure" and the authority for separation was Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9.  The applicant received an SPD Code of JPC and an RE Code of 3.

According to the statements submitted in support of the applicant's petition, she has successfully managed a career, while caring for her two children, and running a home day-care business.  The three statements all indicate the applicant is a good parent, with strong values.  Her college grade transcripts indicate that she has accumulated college credits from Blue Mountain Community College, Portland Community College, and Treasure Valley Community College.

Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, provides for the administrative separation of soldiers based on alcohol or other drug abuse when the soldier is enrolled in an Alcohol and Drug Program and their commander determines that further rehabilitation efforts are not practical.  It notes that "alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure will be reported separately from separations for drug abuse rehabilitation failure."  The service of soldiers discharged under Chapter 9 will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.  

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, then in effect, covered eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the United States Army Reserve.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribed basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.  That chapter included a list of armed forces RE codes, including RA RE codes.  RE-3 applies to those individuals who were not considered fully qualified for reenlistment or continuous service at the time of separation, but for which a subsequent request for waiver could be submitted for the purpose of reenlistment at a later date under the provisions of Army Regulation 601-210.  RE-4 applies to individuals separated from their last period of service with a non-waivable disqualification.  Both Army Regulation 601-280, which establishes the policies and procedures for immediate reenlistment, and Army Regulation 601-210, which establishes the policies and provisions for reenlistment of soldiers after separation from active duty, state that individuals separated as a result of drug or alcohol rehabilitation failure are ineligible for reenlistment at any time, and requests for waivers may not be submitted.

Army Regulation 635-5-1 states that SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations, which identify reasons for, and types of separation from active duty.  The primary purpose of SPD codes is to provide statistical accounting of reasons for separation.  They are intended exclusively for the internal use of DOD and the military services to assist in the collection and analysis of 

separation data.  This analysis may, in turn, influence changes in separation policy.  SPD codes are not intended to stigmatize an individual in any manner.  SPD Code JPC applies to individuals who are separated as a result of drug rehabilitation failure.  A “cross-reference” chart, provided by officials from the separations branch at the U.S. Total Army Personnel Command, notes that RE-4 is the appropriate RE code for individuals who receive an SPD code of JPC.

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 the absence of evidence to the contrary, the Board presumes that the applicant's separation action was accomplished in accordance with applicable provisions of the law and regulations.  The Board notes that the applicant has provided no evidence, other than her self-authored statement, which confirms her contention that she was discharged from the Army as a result of a "false-positive" urinalysis.  In the absence of such evidence the Board finds no basis to conclude that her discharge was based on erroneous information.

2.  The applicant’s SPD Code was appropriate based on the reason for her separation.  However, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant received an 
RE-3, when regulatory requirements indicate that she should have received an RE-4, the Board finds no basis to change her RE Code to one which would permit her to enlist in the Army National Guard.  Additionally, the Board has consistently held that corrections that would render an individual’s records worse than as currently constituted, will not be made.  Hence, even though the evidence indicates that applicant should have received an RE-4, rather than an RE-3 upon her separation from active duty in 1986, the Board will not take any actions to change her RE Code to show the correct code because such an action could been seen as more derogatory.  

3.  The Board concludes that the applicant’s inability to return to military service, based on the reason for her separation, as apposed to her existing RE Code, does not serve as a basis for the Board to change either code, solely to permit her to enlist in the Army National Guard.

4.  Additionally, while the Board commends the applicant for her ability to balance parenthood with her employment and continuation of her education, none of those issues, either individually or together warrant the relief requested.

5.  The applicant is advised that although the Board has determined that her RE-3 code was properly assigned, this does not mean that she is totally disqualified from reenlistment.  The disqualification upon which the RE-3 code assignment was based may be waived for reenlistment.  The applicant is advised that if she desires to reenlist, she should contact a local recruiter who can best advise her on her eligibility for reenlistment.  Those individuals can best advise a former servicemember as to the needs of the service at the time and may process reenlistment waivers for RE codes.

6.  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 that requirement.

7.  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

__SK ___  __CJP  __  __JTM __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003088445	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20030911	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	100.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.