| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Rosa M. Chandler | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. James E. Anderholm | Member | |
| Ms. Charmane Collins | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge (GD) under honorable conditions be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge (HD) and that his reentry eligibility (RE) code be changed to one that will allow reenlistment.
APPLICANT STATES: That he makes this request so that he may be eligible to reenlist in the Active Army. He believes that his separation was inequitable because the incidents that led to it occurred over a very short period of time and were primarily due to a personality conflict between himself and members of his chain of command; that he used alcohol as a means of escape, but overcame his problem and no longer uses alcohol. He also states that he was an exemplary soldier prior to separation; that he was an honor graduate during basic training; that he has served with distinction in the Washington Army National Guard since 1989; that he has earned a master's degree; and that he has taught school for the past 5 years. He adds that, at the time of separation, he was told that he could request a waiver to reenlist after waiting 2 years, but when he applied for the Active Guard/Reserve (AGR) Program, he was informed that his RE code of RE-3 was not waivable. He believes that an honorable discharge will provide him with more opportunities and enable him to better serve his country. In support of his request, he submits: a letter dated 8 March 2001; memoranda dated 8 March 2001 and 12 March 2002; a Letter of Recommendation, dated 30 March 2002; an AGR Job Vacancy Announcement, dated November 2000, that shows his application was rejected because he was involuntarily removed from active duty; and copies of two DD Forms 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), dated 11 October 1985 (GD) and 24 September 1999 (HD from AGR Program).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
That on 12 October 1983, he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for 3 years and training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11H (Heavy Anti-Armor Weapons Crewman). He completed basic training and advanced individual training and, on 3 March 1984, he was assigned to Fort Bragg, North Carolina
On 1 July 1985, the applicant was counseled after he appeared to be drunk at Reveille. On the same date, a breathalyzer test showed that he had a .14 % blood-alcohol level with .10% considered to be legally drunk. On 2 July 1985, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military (UCMJ), was imposed against the applicant for being drunk while on duty on 1 July 1985. His punishment included 14 days of extra duty and restriction.
On 4 September 1985, a bar to enlistment was initiated against the applicant. The applicant's commander cited the bases for the bar were that the applicant was dismissed from the Brigade Leadership Course on 4 April 1985 after having alcohol on his breath and missing formation; that he was drunk on duty on 2 July 1985; that on 9 August 1985, civilian authorities charged him with reckless driving involving personal injury while under the influence with a blood-alcohol level of .17 %; that he was awaiting an October 1985 court date as a result of this incident; and that he was enrolled in Operation Awareness, Track 2 (substance abuse counseling).
On 17 September 1985, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation by professionally trained personnel and he was determined to be mentally responsible and to meet retention standards.
On 23 September 1985, the applicant's commander officially notified him that he was being recommended for discharge with a GD under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 for a pattern of misconduct. The applicant was advised that the bases for this recommendation were the two drunk on duty incidents that had occurred within 60 days of each other, and the drunk driving incident that resulted in another service member being hospitalized with paralysis. The applicant was advised of the rights available to him. The applicant's commander stated that he had been enrolled in Operation Awareness and counseled by his chain of command and disposition by means other than separation were not feasible or appropriate because the applicant continued to abuse alcohol.
On the same date, the applicant's commander requested that the requirement for further rehabilitative efforts be waived; that despite the attempts made by the chain of command, the applicant showed no rehabilitative potential; that he refused to perform as required without constant supervision; and that he did not possess the desire or potential to become a productive member of the Army. He added that additional attempts to rehabilitate the applicant would only prove futile.
On 24 September 1985, applicant consulted with legal counsel. He was advised of the nature of the contemplated separation action and its effects. He was also advised of the rights available to him and that he was not entitled to have an administrative separation hearing by a board of officers. The applicant submitted a statement in which he contended that he believed he should receive the best characterization of service (i.e., an HD); that he was an honor graduate out of basic training; that he had also been recognized for his achievements in the completion of other courses; that he had always strived to do his best; that he had made mistakes and that he had learned from them.
On 3 October 1985, the appropriate authority waived further rehabilitative requirements and directed that the applicant be separated with a GD and that he not to be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve.
On 11 October 1985, the applicant was separated under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200 for "misconduct-pattern of misconduct" with a GD. He had completed 2 years of active military service. He was assigned an RE code of RE-3.
The applicant's record of service in the Washington Army National Guard is not available. However, the applicant served honorably in the AGR Program from
22 April 1998 to 24 September 1999 when he was issued a DD Form 214 and released from active duty.
There is no evidence that the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a review of his discharge under that board's 15-year statute of limitations.
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 enlisting and processing into the RA, as well as the eligibility of prior service applicants for enlistment. That chapter includes a list of Armed Forces RE codes, including RA RE codes.
A code of RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service. The disqualification is waivable. However, the disqualification may not be waivable for certain persons who have received nonjudicial punishment, bars to reenlistment, or separations under the provisions of chapters 9, 10, 13, and 14 of Army Regulation 635-200. Local recruiting personnel have the responsibility for determining whether an individual meets the current enlistment criteria and for processing requests for waiver.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct. Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of alcohol, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absences without leave. Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed. Army policy states that a under other than honorable conditions discharge is normally considered appropriate, but a GD under honorable conditions or an HD may be granted.
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's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would have jeopardized his rights. The type of discharge was appropriate considering the facts of the case.
3. A code of RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued military service, but the disqualification is waivable as determined by enlistment officials and the needs of the military.
4. The Board notes the applicant’s submission outlining his many successful accomplishments since separation from active duty. The applicant is to be commended for his efforts. However, these accomplishments do not provide the Board a basis upon which to grant relief.
5. In view of the circumstances in this case, both the applicant's assigned RE code and the characterization of service were, and still are, appropriate. The applicant has submitted no evidence show that either is in error or should be changed.
6. 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
| CASE ID | AR2002074159 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021203 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | (GD) |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19851011 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200, Chap 14 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A60.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | (DENY) |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144.6000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100010559
The applicant requests: * the narrative reason for his discharge be changed * his reentry eligibility (RE) code be changed to allow him to enlist * his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge 2. At the time of the applicant's separation an honorable or general discharge was authorized. 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 | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040007159C070208
The applicant requests that his reenlistment code (RE) code be upgraded. At the time the applicant separated in 1985, RE code 4 was the appropriate code given to any Soldier who separated with a locally-imposed bar to reenlistment with over 18 years of service. Evidence of record shows that the applicant served less than 18 years of service and should have received an RE code 3 upon his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003085614C070212
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: The commander cited the basis his recommendation was his refusal to participate in the ADAPCP, after he was command-directed.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004356
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). Army Regulation 635-200 further states 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. Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the service at the time and are required to process RE code waivers.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070017645
The applicant requests, in effect, that his Reentry Eligibility (RE) Code 3 be changed so that he may enlist in the Army. On 5 October 1987, the applicants commander recommended separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, for failure to successfully complete the ADAPCP. Accordingly, he was discharged under the provision of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for alcohol abuse-rehabilitation failure.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060012153
Member The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. By memorandum dated 29 October 1990, the applicant's ADAPCP Clinical Director advised the applicant's company commander that the applicant's enrollment in the treatment program was unsatisfactory. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005902
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant upon his discharge shows he was separated under the provisions of Chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of drug abuse - rehabilitation failure. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was declared an ADAPCP rehabilitation failure based on alcohol abuse, and not drug abuse.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069423C070402
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. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, correction of appropriate military records to show a reentry eligibility (RE) code which would allow reenlistment. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show:
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001063544C070421
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: On 7 January 1998, the appropriate authority at ADAPCP recommended that the applicant be declared an alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure due to his inability to meet the requirements of the ADAPCP. On 16 March 1998, the applicant was discharged with a GD under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 9, by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure and assigned an RE code of RE-4.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005774
On 24 October 1985, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of chapter 13 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel) for unsatisfactory performance. The commander's letter advised the applicant of his right to have his case considered by a board of officers (if he would have 6 or more years of total active and reserve military service at the time of his separation); to appear in person before a...