Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
Mrs. Joyce A. Hall | Analyst |
Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | ||
Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | ||
Mr. William D. Barr | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, 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, which preclude reenlistment.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, to change his reenlistment code or grant an exception to policy so that he can reenlist in the Army and support the troops and our nations mission. Before the incident that caused his discharge, he was a highly trained soldier with conduct above reproach. The recruiter told him that he could reenlist. He tried to reenlist and was told that he needed to have his reentry code changed or to secure an exception to policy.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 1 October 1985, after having prior active duty service the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 6 years. He was assigned military occupational specialty 71L20 (Administrative Specialist).
The applicant’s service record shows that he served in Korea from 11 October 1985 to 7 October 1986.
He reported for assignment at Fort Harrison, IN on or about 1 November 1986.
Between January and February 1988, the applicant was counseled on two separate occasions concerning dishonored checks and for suspension of his check cashing privileges.
On 16 June 1988, at the applicant’s request, his unit commander recommended that he be enrolled in the Track III, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) for drug dependency.
The DA Form 3647 (Inpatient Treatment Record Cover Sheet), filed in the applicant’s record shows that he was admitted to a treatment facility located at Fort Benjamin Harrison, IN on 5 July 1988, for alcohol abuse and a single drug use.
On 10 July 1988, the applicant was transferred to the Dwight D. Eisenhower Army Medical Center, Fort Gordon, GA. He was admitted to the Track III, Residential Treatment Facility (RTF), for treatment of a possible substance dependency disorder. His treatment plan was to attend alcoholics anonymous two times per week, attend weekly group therapy session, and to participate weekly in biochemical testing.
On 18 August 1988, after failing a urinalysis, the applicant was discharged from the RTF program as a rehabilitation failure.
On 15 September 1988, the applicant was notified by his unit commander that he was being recommended for a general discharge (GD) under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200 chapter 9, for Alcohol/Drug Abuse Rehabilitation Failure. The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him. He acknowledged notification; he requested consideration, personal appearance, and representation by counsel before a board of officers. He was afforded the opportunity to submit a statement in his own behalf. He stated, in effect, that he was a valuable asset to the Army. He was trained in three specialties infantry, combat engineer, and administration. He has served in the Army for ten years without any negative actions with the exception of passing three bad checks. He was going through a divorce coupled with a newborn baby and a highly stressful unrewarding job. He took a chance and asked the military for help. As a result he was sent to the RTF for a six-week course, he completed five weeks. This situation has developed into a dark period of his military career. Since returning from the RTF his life is better than it has been in two years. Applying what he learned while enrolled in the RTF, he has eliminated those stressors that caused him to overlook the realities. His family life is sound, his financial situation has improved with the help of a part-time job, and his military life is great due to his transfer to a new assignment. He has been involved in trying to repair the damage that has occurred in his life and he hasn’t felt the need or desire to drink or use drugs.
On 20 September 1988, a mental status evaluation and physical examination cleared the applicant for separation.
On 13 October 1988, the intermediate commander approved the recommendation for discharge.
On 7 November 1988, the applicant submitted a request for a Conditional Waiver. He voluntarily waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board contingent upon him receiving a characterization of service/description of separation not less favorable than honorable. He also requested to remain in the service until 16 December 1988.
On 21 November 1988, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request for the conditional waiver and directed the issuance of an Honorable Discharge Certificate.
On 16 December 1988, the applicant was honorably discharged in pay grade
E-6 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9. He completed a total of 10 years, 4 months and 3 days of creditable active service. He was assigned a reentry code of RE-3.
Recruiting personnel have the responsibility for initially determining whether an individual meets current enlistment criteria. They are required to process a request for waiver under the provisions of chapter 4, Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment Program). Therefore, since enlistment criteria do change, and since the applicant have the right to apply for a waiver, it is suggested that he periodically visit his local recruiting station to determine if he should apply for a waiver.
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 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.
RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification is waivable. Certain persons who have received nonjudicial punishment are so disqualified, as are persons with bars to reenlistment, and those discharged under the provisions of chapters 9, 10, 13, and 14 of Army Regulation 635-200.
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. Army Regulation requires that prior to discharge or release from active duty individuals will be assigned RE codes base on their service records or the reason for discharge. Evidence of record shows that the applicant was properly assigned an RE code of RE-3 based on his reason for discharge, and that the RE code is waivable.
3. Therefore, there is no basis for removal of the RE code from the applicant’s record.
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 __ __ BJE _ __WDB __ DENY APPLICATION
CASE ID | AR2002069423 |
SUFFIX | |
RECON | YYYYMMDD |
DATE BOARDED | 2002/09/10 |
TYPE OF DISCHARGE | HD |
DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1988/12/16 |
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, chap 9 |
DISCHARGE REASON | |
BOARD DECISION | DENY |
REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
ISSUES 1. | 100.0300 |
2. | |
3. | |
4. | |
5. | |
6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003516
On 21 April 1993, the applicant was notified by his company commander that he was being processed for separation under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 for alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure. The SPD code of JPD was the appropriate code for the applicant based on the guidance provided in this regulation for Soldiers separating under the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure. In addition, evidence of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130006521
On 11 October 1988, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him with a general discharge under honorable conditions under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations). 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. The regulation showed that the SPD "JPD" as shown on the...
ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130005104
3 On 4 June 2012, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 9, AR 635-200, for being an alcohol and drug rehabilitation failure. On 5 July 2012, the separation authority approved the proposed action and directed the applicants discharge with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. Army policy states that an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized depending on...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009999
On 12 March 1987, the applicants immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) for ADAPCP failure. On 17 March 1987, the applicants immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of ADAPCP rehabilitation failure. The evidence of record shows that the applicant suffered...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9708421
On 5 December 1991, the commander recommended the applicant’s discharge from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitative failure. He recommended Track III in-patient treatment prior to or at the time of the applicant’s separation from the military. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9708421C070209
On 5 December 1991, the commander recommended the applicants discharge from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitative failure. However, it appears that his honorable discharge of 21 March 1988 should be considered as having been issued as a complete and unconditional separation. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the applicant was eligible for a complete and unconditional...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075052C070403
It was noted that he must continue attending ADAPCP counseling and otherwise comply with the treatment plan until his discharge or face disciplinary action. On 9 June 1995, the applicant's commander notified the applicant he was being recommended for discharge from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9 because he failed to achieve successful rehabilitation and he failed to comply with the prescribed treatment plans and goals. He was still required to complete...
NAVY | DRB | 2005_Navy | ND0500720
ND05-00720 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20050317. Relief denied.The record does not document NJP for the drug use that resulted in the Applicant’s administrative discharge or the administrative discharge process. The names, and votes of the members of the Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199710155C070209
On 3 August 1990, the commander, in consultation with the rehabilitation team, determined that further rehabilitation efforts were not practical and declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure and requested a summary of rehabilitation activities in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9. On that same day the applicant was informed by the rehabilitation team that he would remain enrolled in the Track II for continued support and as encouraged to continued with his Treatment...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199710155
On 3 August 1990, the commander, in consultation with the rehabilitation team, determined that further rehabilitation efforts were not practical and declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure and requested a summary of rehabilitation activities in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9. On that same day the applicant was informed by the rehabilitation team that he would remain enrolled in the Track II for continued support and as encouraged to continued with his Treatment...