RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	


	BOARD DATE:	  25 October 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070010257 


	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.  


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Ms. Jeanne Marie Rowan

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Ms. Linda Simmons

Chairperson

Mr. Scott Faught

Member

Mr. Roland Venable

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 reconsideration of his request to have his reenlistment code changed so that he is eligible to reenlist and to have his separation document changed to reflect "no bar to reenlistment."

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he has new evidence to present to the Board for its reconsideration of his request to change his reenlistment code so he will be eligible to enlist at a time of his choice.  He asks for a reenlistment code of RE-3C or better.  He furthers states that his military occupational specialty 19D1O should have been indicated by the Board in its record of proceedings, that he does have significant achievements to present to the Board, and he adamantly denies using drugs and that he is not a drug abuser.  Finally, he states, in effect, that he was not given due process or proper legal counsel, that he was denied a retest of the urinalysis by an independent laboratory, and that he was ordered into drug rehabilitation counseling due to one positive urinalysis that he finds highly questionable.  He states he received a "scarlet letter" when his commander issued the Bar to Reenlistment, which he believed he could not overcome.  He adds that he did, in fact, submit his application within the 15-year statute of limitations.

3.  As new evidence, the applicant provides a letter of commendation from a major general, an athletic proficiency award, a certificate of training showing course completion for 19D1O (Armored Reconnaissance Specialist), a copy of his DD Form 214, and an unsigned and undated copy of a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge or Dismissal From the Armed Forces of the United States).

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20050015337, on 1 August 2006.

2.  The applicant restated his request from his initial DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record under the Provisions of Title 10, USC, section 1552) dated 10 October 2005.  He wants the Board to clearly understand his request is that he is not seeking immediate reenlistment, rather he requests that his reenlistment code be changed to reflect a RE-3C or higher so as to be eligible to enlist should world events reflect the need in a normative manner.

3.  The applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), with a separation date of 4 August 1986, shows the entry in Item 11 (Primary Specialty Number, Title and Years and Months in Specialty) "19D1O, Cavalry Scout."

4.  The applicant provided a copy of his Department of the Army Certificate of Training, undated, which shows he successfully completed 19D1O (Armored Reconnaissance Specialist) training at Fort Knox, Kentucky.

5.  The applicant provided a letter signed by the commanding general of Fort Knox, dated 10 December 1984, which shows he was selected from among his peers and retained as a track commander for an additional 19D one station training cycle for initial entry Soldiers.  His selection was based on his outstanding performance and leadership potential during his initial entry training cycle.  

6.  The applicant provided a copy of a certificate from Headquarters, 3rd Basic Training Brigade, Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, which shows he received the Athletic Proficiency Award for his significant accomplishment on the Army Physical Readiness Test.  The certificate is dated 23 June 1982 and signed by the company commander.

7.  The applicant provided a copy of DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharges or Dismissal from the Armed Forces of the United States), dated 22 December 1992, which is incomplete and is not authenticated with the applicant's own signature.  

8.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the policies and procedures for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel of the Army.  Paragraph 16-5, in effect at the time, provided the authority for Soldiers denied or ineligible for continued active duty service to be separated upon their request.  It allowed Soldiers who perceived that they could not overcome a locally imposed bar to reenlistment to request early separation.

9.  Army Regulation 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes, provides the specific authorities (regulatory or directive), reasons for separating Soldiers from active duty, and the SPD codes to be entered on the DD Form 214. The regulation in effect at the time, stated that the SPD code of KSF was the appropriate code to assign to Soldiers separated under the provisions of paragraph 16-5b of Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of locally imposed bar 
to reenlistment.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table in effect at the time established RE-4 as the proper code to assign members separated with this SPD code.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that he is seeking a more favorable reenlistment code of RE-3C to be eligible for enlistment.  He states he is not seeking immediate reenlistment as stated in Board Docket AR20050015337, dated 1 August 2006.  

2.  The applicant contends that he was recognized for at least two significant acts of achievement.  The applicant provided a certificate of achievement and a general officer commendation letter, which shows he excelled during his initial entry training at Fort Knox, Kentucky, and while taking his semi-annual Army Physical Fitness Test.  While these two personal achievements are noteworthy, the applicant's record also shows he received nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for missing unit formations.  

3.  The applicant contends that he did not receive appropriate legal counseling when the unit drug urinalysis showed he tested positive for an illegal substance on 19 April 1985.  He contends that the Bar to Reenlistment imposed on 2 May 1985 by his company commander for the abuse of illegal chemical substances was a "scarlet letter" and that he could not overcome its negative impact.  He adamantly denies he used drugs and that he was not a drug abuser.  He states, "His company commander ordered him to counseling for his one and only positive urinalysis."  Army Regulation 600-85 (Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program) (ADAPCP) required the company commander to refer all Soldiers with urinalysis positives to the ADAPCP program for an initial counseling session within the ADAPCP program.  The commander was mandated by regulatory guidance to refer the applicant to the ADAPCP for counseling.  The company commander complied with established regulatory guidance.  

4.  While the applicant provided new evidence to support his reconsideration request to change his reenlistment code to RE-3C or a more favorable reenlistment code, the evidence provided is insufficient to warrant granting his request.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis to grant the applicant's request.


BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__LS____  __SF ___  __RV ___  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AR20050015337, dated 1 August 2006.




  ___   Linda Simmons_________
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070010257
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20071025
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.
100.0600
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.