RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        20 October 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050002815


      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. Joyce A. Wright               |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. John T. Meixell               |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. James B. Gunlicks             |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Jeanette R. McCants           |     |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 Reentry (RE) Code of "4" be changed to
a "2" or "3."

2.  The applicant states that he does not believe that he should have had
an RE Code of "4" which prevents him from returning to duty in the Reserve.
 He was a good Soldier and would very much like to return to service.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of
Release or Discharge from Active Duty) in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error which
occurred on 2 August 2000, the date of his discharge.  The application
submitted in this case is dated 15 February 2005.

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 limitations 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.  The applicant's military records show he entered active duty on 1 June
1995, as a power generator equipment repairman (52D).  He was promoted to
specialist (SPC/E-4) effective 1 October 1997.

4.  On 11 February 1999, he was punished under Article 15, Uniform Code
Military Justice (UCMJ), for failure to go to his appointed place of duty,
dereliction in the performance of his duties, and failure to stay awake
while performing the duties as the battery charge of quarters.  His
punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3, forfeiture of pay (suspended),
and 14 days extra duty.

5.  He was promoted to SPC/E-4 effective 1 January 2000.





6.  On 9 May 2000, the Chief, Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP),
Community Counseling Center, responded to the first sergeant's request for
information.  The Chief stated that on 10 April 2000, the applicant
attended an initial screening/evaluation appointment to complete the
initial intake forms.  The commander was notified of his enrollment in ASAP
to include the dates of the
2-day Army Drug and Alcohol Prevention Training (ADAPT) course.  The first
sergeant reported the applicant drunk on duty after the enrollment date and
stated that it was obvious the treatment plan was not followed.  The Chief
also stated that from the initial information, the applicant's alcohol
involvement met the DSM-IV criteria: (a) AXIS1: 303.90 Alcohol Dependence;
(b) AXIS II; Deferred; and (c) AXIS III: Deferred.

7.  The applicant's behavior toward change and failure to accept
responsibility  for his actions/problems negates satisfactory participation
in Rehabilitation Treatment.  The applicant was afforded many opportunities
to receive/obtain help.  This lack of motivation and continued aberrant
behavior were indicative of commitment failure to treatment issues.  In
accordance with Army Regulation 600-85, the applicant met the criteria for
Chapter 9, UCMJ action as a rehabilitation failure.

8.  On 29 June 2000, 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 abuse rehabilitation
failure.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation, the applicant was
declared a rehabilitation failure within the meaning of Army Regulation 600-
85.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant waived his rights and
elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

9.  The commander submitted his recommendation to separate the applicant
under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 9.

10.  On 24 July 2000, the separation authority approved the recommendation
for discharge and directed that the applicant be furnished an Honorable
Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 2 August 2000.  He
had a total of 5 years, 2 months, and 2 days of creditable service and was
issued an RE Code of "4."







11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 9 contains the authority and
outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or
other drug abuse.  A member who has been referred to the Army's Alcohol and
Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) for alcohol/drug abuse
may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in,
cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of
potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no
longer practical.

12.  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.

13.  RE–4 applies to persons not qualified for continued service by virtue
of being separated from the service with non-waivable disqualification such
as misconduct.

14.  RE-3 applies to persons not qualified for continued Army service, but
the disqualification is waivable.  Certain persons who have received
nonjudical punishment are so disqualified, as are persons with bars to
reenlistment, and those discharged under the provisions of Chapter 9, 10,
13, 14, and 16 of Army Regulation 635-200.

15.  RE-2 applies to Soldiers being separated before completing a contract
period of service whose reenlistment is not contemplated.

16.  Army Regulation 635-5-1, in effect at that time, prescribed the
specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the
reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the
separation program designators to be used for these stated reasons.  The
regulation shows that the separation program designator (SPD) “JPD”, as
shown on the applicant’s DD Form 214, specifies the narrative reason for
discharge as "Alcohol Abuse Rehabilitation Failure" and that the authority
for discharge under this SPD is "Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9."





17.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table provides instructions for
determining the RE code for Active Army Soldiers and Reserve Component
Soldiers separated for cause.  It also shows the SPD code with a
corresponding RE code and states that more than one RE code could apply.
The Soldier’s file and other pertinent documents must be reviewed in order
to make a final determination.  The SPD code of “JPD” has a corresponding
RE code of “4.”

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence shows that the applicant was discharged under the
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for Alcohol Abuse
Rehabilitation Failure. He was given an RE Code of "4" and was furnished an
honorable discharge.

2.  It is apparent that the applicant wishes to reenlist in the USAR;
however, his RE Code of "4" prevents him from reenlisting.

3.  The Board notes that the applicant's RE Code of "4" is consistent with
the basis for his separation and in this case finds no basis to correct the
existing code.

4.  The applicant was eligible to apply for a waiver after 2 years;
however, there is insufficient evidence to show that he attempted to
request such a waiver. There also is insufficient evidence, and the
applicant has provided none, to show that he attempted to enroll in any
civilian drug or rehabilitation program after his discharge.

5.  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.

6.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 2 August 2000; therefore, the time for
the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or injustice
expired on 1 August 2003.  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

_JBG___  _JTM____  _JRM_______  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.




                                  _       John T. Meixell_______
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050002815                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20051020                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |20000802                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR  635-200, CHAPTER 9                  |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |100                                     |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |

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