RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          19 AUGUST 2004
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004100730


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings 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. Fred Eichorn                  |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Curtis Greenway               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. William Powers                |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that his RE (Reentry) Code be changed to permit
him to return to military service.

2.  The applicant states that he believes that while his separation
document was being prepared the clerk saw that he was being separated under
Chapter 9 as an alcohol rehabilitation failure and just “slapped an RE-4 on
there without further investigation of [his] file.”

3.  The applicant provides no evidence in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 9 September 2000.  The application submitted in this case
is dated 30 October 2003.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.

3.  Records available to the Board indicate the applicant entered active
duty on 10 March 1999.  In January 2000, while assigned to a unit in
Germany, the applicant was punished under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice for use of marijuana.  His punishment included reduction
to pay grade E-2, forfeiture, extra duty, and restriction.

4.  According to a statement in the applicant’s file from the clinical
director of the Vilseck Community Counseling Center in Germany, the
applicant was referred for counseling on 1 February 2000 as a result of
testing positive for marijuana use.  He was ultimately enrolled in the
ADAPCP (Army Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program) outpatient-
counseling program.  The primary basis for enrollment was alcohol and
secondary for “cannabis.”




5.  The applicant was admitted to the ADAPCP in-patient program on 9 March
2000 and discharged on 21 April 2000.  The clinical director’s statement
noted that the command had reported that the applicant continued to drink
while enrolled in the program and that he displayed poor motivation for
rehabilitation.  The clinical director indicated that the “prognosis for
successfully remaining free of alcohol or other drug related incident
appears poor” and that his overall program in the treatment plan was poor.

6.  While the clinical director’s statement was authored in July 2000, the
applicant’s separation document indicates that he was promoted to pay grade

E-3 in May 2000, in spite of his drug and alcohol problem.

7.  On 21 August 2000 the applicant’s commander initiated action to
administratively discharge the applicant from active duty under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, as an alcohol or other
drug abuse rehabilitation failure.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of
the proposed separation and did not submit any information or evidence in
his own behalf.

8.  The commander’s recommendation was approved and on 9 September 2000 the
applicant was discharged under honorable conditions.  He received a SPD
(separation program designator) code of “JPD” and an RE Code of “4.”

9.  In July 2003 the Army Discharge Review Board upgraded the character of
the applicant’s discharge to fully honorable.

10.  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-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.



11.  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 JPD applies
to individuals who are separated as a result of alcohol rehabilitation
failure.  A “cross-reference” chart, provided by officials from the
separations branch at the United States Army Human Resources Command-
Alexandria, notes that RE-4 is the appropriate RE code for individuals who
receive an SPD code of JPD.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence confirms that the applicant’s RE Code was assigned based
on the fact that he was not qualified for continuous service at the time of
his separation.  The applicant’s RE Code is appropriate considering the
basis for his separation.  The fact that he may be precluded from returning
to military service is not sufficient justification to change the
applicant’s RE Code.

2.  Contrary to the applicant’s contention, his RE Code is not a reflection
of the characterization of his service, or the fact that the
characterization of his service was recently upgraded to honorable.  The RE
Code merely reflects that he was not eligible to reenlist at the time of
his separation from active duty because his discharge was based on his
alcohol rehabilitation failure.

3.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must
show, 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.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 9 September 2000; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on
8 September 2003.  However, the applicant did not file within the 3-year
statute of limitations and has not provided a compelling explanation or
evidence to show that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
failure to timely file in this case.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___FE __  ___CG __  ___WP__  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented does not demonstrate
the existence of a probable error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board
determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis
for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

2.  As a result, the Board further determined that there is no evidence
provided which shows that it would be in the interest of justice to excuse
the applicant's failure to timely file this application within the 3-year
statute of limitations prescribed by law.  Therefore, there is insufficient
basis to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing or for
correction of the records of the individual concerned.




            _____ Fred Eichorn_______
                    CHAIRPERSON




                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004100730                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20040819                                |
|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.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]