MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 19 September 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2002075052

         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:

Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson
Ms. Melinda M. Darby		Member
Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		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 narrative reason for separation be changed to normal expiration term of service and his reentry (RE) code be upgraded from 4.

APPLICANT STATES: That according to a signed certificate he was finished with Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Training (ADAPT). His counselor at the time he was in rehabilitation was not qualified as he did not have the proper license. He did not have the chance to review his packet with anyone. He provides as supporting evidence his Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, DD Form 214; two letters from the current Madigan Army Medical Center Army Substance Abuse Program Clinical Director (dated 18 December 2000 and 23 January 2002); six certificates of training, both military and civilian, showing his training history in chemical operations-related courses; and a Certificate of Training showing he completed the ADAPT course on 5 April 1995.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 January 1993. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 54B (Chemical Operations Specialist).

On 10 January 1995, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for wrongfully using marijuana.

On 5 April 1995, the Clinical Director (not the Director who provided the applicant's support statements) of the Madigan Army Medical Center Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) (apparently later redesignated the Army Substance Abuse Program), provided a summary of the ADAPCP rehabilitation efforts on the applicant to the applicant's commander. The Director noted that the applicant was referred to the ADAPCP on 8 August 1994. The Rehabilitation Team (which included the company-level commander, the ADAPCP counselor, the soldier, and others as appropriate) determined the applicant had alcohol abuse problems significant enough to warrant enrollment in Track II. The applicant would attend counseling/therapy once weekly or more frequently for the first 30 days, then twice a month for the duration of rehabilitation. He would be subject to a one-time only urinalysis. He would attend Alcoholics Anonymous meetings twice weekly. He would attend the 14- hour ADAPT course. On 23 March 1995, the Rehabilitation Team determined that the applicant failed to comply with treatment plans and goals. A urine sample collected from him on 17 October 1994 as part of his ADAPCP Track II treatment plan was confirmed as positive for marijuana. It was recommended he be discharged from the Army. 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 10 May 1995, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found to be qualified for separation.

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.

On 9 June 1995, the applicant acknowledged notification of the separation action. He checked that he was afforded the opportunity to consult with appointed counsel for consultation and accepted the opportunity to consult with counsel. He was advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated action. It cannot be determined if he checked whether he did or did not submit a statement in his own behalf; however, no statement is available.

On 14 June 1995, the applicant's commander formally recommended his separation. The commander noted that the applicant failed to display significant progress toward rehabilitation in the ADAPCP.

On 14 June 1995, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant be given an honorable discharge certificate.

On 28 June 1995, the applicant was discharged with an honorable discharge in pay grade E-2 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, alcohol rehabilitation failure. He had completed 2 years, 5 months, and 15 days of creditable active service and had no lost time. He was given a separation code of JPD (alcohol rehabilitation failure) and an RE code of 4.

The provided 18 December 2000 letter states that ADAPCP records are maintained for a period of 5 years following discharge from treatment and there were no longer records of the applicant's course of treatment. The information provided in the letter (course of treatment, completion of the ADAPT training, etc) was taken from records in the applicant's possession. The Clinical Director noted that the certificate of completion of the ADAPT course was authentic.

The provided 23 January 2002 letter states that the counselor who conducted the applicant's assessment in 1994 was no longer with the agency as the requirements for practice in the Alcohol Substance Abuse Program were changed to require that clinicians be licensed as master's level psychologists or social workers who were also credentialed in chemical dependency treatment. His counselor did not meet these requirements.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 9 provides for the discharge of members based on alcohol or other drug abuse such as the illegal, wrongful or improper use of any controlled substance, alcohol or other drug when the soldier in enrolled in ADAPCP and the commander, in consultation with the rehabilitation team, determines that further rehabilitation efforts are not practical, rendering the soldier a rehabilitative failure.

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.

RE 4 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service and the disqualification is not waivable.

The Separation Program Designator Code (SPD)/Reentry (RE) Code Cross Reference Table states that, when the SPD is JPD, then RE code 4 will be given.

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. Although the applicant was referred to ADAPCP due to an alcohol problem, treatment and goals aim at rehabilitating the individual in any substance abuse area. While entered in the Track II program he was required to take a urinalysis. He failed that urinalysis when his sample tested positive for marijuana. Due to this incident, his Rehabilitation Team determined that he failed to comply with treatment plans and goals. He was still required to complete his treatment plan, which included attending the ADAPT course. Completion of that course, however, did not change the fact he was not a rehabilitation success.

3. The fact the applicant's counselor was later released from working with the ADAPCP due to upgraded educational standards is immaterial. His counselor was qualified at the time. The Rehabilitation Team that recommended his separation consisted of more members than just his counselor and the final decision was made by his commander.

4. The evidence of record shows the applicant had the opportunity to consult with consulting counsel concerning his separation.

5. The applicant was properly separated as an alcohol rehabilitation failure and was properly given an RE code of 4.

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

__JHL__ __MMD__ ___REB__ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002075052
SUFFIX
RECON
DATE BOARDED	2002/09/19
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
DATE OF DISCHARGE
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1.	100.03
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.