RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        15 August 2006
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20050016923


      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             |
|     |Mr. Dean L. Turnbull              |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Shirley L. Powell             |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Rose M. Lys                   |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. John G. Heck                  |     |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, in effect, that his reentry eligibility (RE)
code RE-4 be upgraded on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or
Discharge from Active Duty) so that he may become eligible for
reenlistment.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that his RE code of RE-4 is in error
because he received an honorable discharge.  He states that if his RE code
of RE-4 was changed, it would provide him the opportunity for reentry into
the military.  He further states that he made some bad choices like most
young Soldiers, and now he realizes it's his duty to serve his country.

3.  The applicant does not provide any additional documentation.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error or injustice
which occurred on 20 September 1995, the date of his discharge from active
duty.  The application submitted in this case is dated 25 November 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 record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 July
 
1994.  He attended basic combat training and advanced individual training,
and was awarded military occupational specialty 71D10 (Legal Specialist).

4.  The applicant received several counselings from his leadership which
pertains to his duty performance, his conduct and his drunkenness.

5.  On 17 January 1995, the applicant was enrolled in the Army Drug and
Alcohol Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) outpatient treatment
program for alcohol dependence.

6.  On 8 August 1995, the applicant failed the ADAPCP outpatient treatment
program due to continued abuse of alcohol, and an unwillingness or
inability to meet the needs and demands of the Army.  On 5 September 1995,
the applicant's commander recommended that he be discharged under the
provisions of Army Regulation 625-200 (Personnel Separation), Chapter 9 for
Alcohol or Other Drug Abuse Rehabilitation Failure.

7.  On 12 September 1995, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and
was advised of the basis for the contemplated action to separate him by
reason of Alcohol or Other Drug Abuse Rehabilitation Failure under Army
Regulation  
635-200, Chapter 9, and of the rights available to him, and the effect of
any action taken by him in waiving his rights.  He understood that if he
had more than 6 years of active and reserve duty at the time of separation,
he may be entitled to have his case heard by an administrative board.

8.  He understood that he may expect or encounter substantial prejudice in
civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions was issued.
 He further understood that if he received a discharge
certificate/character of service which was less than honorable, he may make
application to the Army Discharge Review Board or the Army Board for
Correction of Military Records for upgrading; however, he realized that an
act of consideration by either board did not imply that his discharge would
be upgraded.  On 14 September 1995, the approving authority approved the
recommendation to discharge the applicant and characterized his term of
service as honorable.

9.  On 20 September 1995, the applicant was discharged from active duty for
the good of the service, in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200,
Chapter 9.  He was assigned a separation program designator (SPD) code of
JPD and assigned an RE code of RE-4.  According to his DD Form 214, he had
completed 1 year, 
2 months, and 15 days of active service.

10.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Regular Army and Army Reserve Enlistment
Program) covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for
enlistment and processing into the Regular Army and the US Army Reserve.
Chapter 3 of this regulation prescribes basic eligibility for prior service
applicants for enlistment.  That chapter includes a list of Armed Forces RE
codes, including Regular Army RE codes.

11.  RE-4 applies to persons separated from the last period of service with
a non-waivable disqualification.  Included in this category are persons who
are discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9.

12.  AR 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designated Codes), Table 2-3, states
that the SPD code JPD denotes involuntary discharge and alcohol
rehabilitation failure.

13.  The Army Human Resources Command publishes a cross-reference of SPD
and RE codes.  This cross-reference shows that an SPD code of JPD is
assigned an RE code of  RE-4.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) 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
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.  At the time of the
applicant’s separation an honorable or general discharge was authorized.
However, an honorable discharge was required if restricted use information
was used.

15.  Army Regulation 601-210, paragraph 3-24a, states in pertinent part,
that prior service personnel will be advised that RE codes may be changed
only if they are determined to be administratively incorrect.  Applicants
who have correct RE codes will be processed for a waiver at their request
if otherwise qualified and a waiver is authorized.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant requests that his RE code of RE-4 be upgraded on his DD
Form 214 so that he may be eligible for reenlistment.

2.  There is no evidence or indication that there was an error or injustice
which caused the applicant to be discharged for alcohol rehabilitation
failure or to be assigned the RE code of RE-4.

3.  Since the applicant was properly discharged, there is no reason to
change a correctly assigned RE code.

4.  Records show the applicant should have discovered the alleged error or
injustice now under consideration on 20 September 1995; therefore, the time
for the applicant to file a request for correction of any error or
injustice expired on  
19 September 1998.  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

____slp__  ___rml__  ___jgh___  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.




                                  ______Shirley L. Powell__________
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20050016923                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20060815                                |
|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.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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