MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


         IN THE CASE OF:
        


         BOARD DATE: 1 July 2003
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2003085613

         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
Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Chairperson
Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member
Ms. Karen Y. Fletcher		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 Reenlistment (RE) Code be changed from RE-3 to RE-1.

APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was unjustly given a RE Code of RE-3 when others who were separated for the same reasons were given a RE-1. He goes on to state that he joined the Navy immediately after graduating high school in 1973 and was honorably released for medical reasons. He continues by stating that he is drug and alcohol free and has been involved in various volunteer work groups helping veterans. In support of his application he submits statements from his wife, step-daughter, and four third parties that attest to his character.

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

He enlisted at Fort Hamilton, New York, on 31 January 1979, for a period of 4 years, training as a cannon crewman, assignment to Fort Campbell, Kentucky and a cash enlistment bonus. At the time of his enlistment he indicated that he had no prior service and that he had used marijuana once.

He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Fort Campbell on 15 May 1979. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-3 on 1 December 1979.

On 16 November 1979, a Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) Reclassification Board found that the applicant could not perform the required duties of his MOS in a combat/field environment. The Board recommended that he be reclassified to another MOS. On 5 December 1979, the findings and recommendations of the board were approved and he was reclassified to MOS 68B (Aircraft Power Plant Repairman). He was reassigned to an aviation unit for on the job training.

On 25 August 1980, he was reassigned to Hawaii and was assigned to a transportation unit.

On 25 February 1981, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for failure to go to his place of duty. His punishment consisted of extra duty.

NJP was again imposed against him on 26 May 1981, for failure to go to his place of duty. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2 (suspended for 90 days) and extra duty.

He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 December 1981 and on 8 June 1982, NJP was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2 and a forfeiture of pay (suspended for 120 days).
The applicant was enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) on 10 November 1982 and was deemed a rehabilitative success on 27 April 1982.

On 6 July 1982, the applicant gave a urine sample during a unit urinalysis, which tested positive for Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).

On 11 August 1982, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for alcohol and drug abuse. He also advised the applicant that he was recommending that he receive a General Discharge Certificate.

After consulting with counsel, the applicant elected to submit a statement in his own behalf in which he asserted that he had enrolled himself in the ADAPCP for his alcohol problem, because of the stress he was under in his new MOS, which he did not choose and was having trouble learning. He turned to alcohol to relieve the stress and was successful in his rehabilitation; however, he was in an environment in which marijuana was being smoked and he smoked it. He stated that he knew he was wrong and he had learned from his mistakes. He requested that he be given a chance to prove his worth to the Army by working as a cook.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 7 September 1982 and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 1 October 1982, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for alcohol or other drug abuse. He had served 3 years, 8 months and 1 day of total active service and was issued a RE Code of RE-3.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 9 of that regulation contains the authority and outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol and/or drug abuse. A member may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, or successfully complete a rehabilitation program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical. Characterization of service will be determined solely by the soldier’s military record that includes the soldier’s behavior and performance during the current enlistment. An honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. It is issued to soldiers whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

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 processing into the Regular Army and the USAR. Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment. That chapter includes a list of armed forces 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 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, and 16 of Army Regulation 635-200. A waiting period of 2 years from separation is required before a waiver may be submitted.

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 accordance with applicable regulations with no evidence of any violations of the applicant’s rights. Accordingly, his service was properly characterized and he was issued the proper RE Code of RE-3.

3. The Board has reviewed the applicant's records and supporting documents and finds that he was afforded every opportunity available to not only succeed as a soldier but to overcome his drug/alcohol problems as well. The applicant chose not to do so and as such, his service did not rise to the level required of an honorable discharge or a RE Code of RE-1.

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

__tsk ___ _mm____ ___kf ___ DENY APPLICATION

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

---

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003085613
SUFFIX
RECON	YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED	2003/07/01
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1982/10/01
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, CH9
DISCHARGE REASON	DRUG AND ALCHOL FAILURE
BOARD DECISION	DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 680	144.6900/A69.00
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.