IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  13 November 2008

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080014970 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, reconsideration of his earlier petition that Item 27 (Reentry Code) of his 25 August 1994 Separation Document (DD Form 214) be corrected to show a more favorable reentry (RE) code.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that he feels that while he was undergoing treatment for alcohol abuse at the 121st General Evacuation Hospital, he was not given a fair chance.  He states that his maturity level since his discharge has greatly increased, that he has been sober for the past 2 years, and that he is in need of military discipline.  He also states it would be in the interest of the United States Army to utilize him as an infantryman during this time of combat and that he could be a major asset to his country.

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

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AR20090008078, on 1 February 2007.

2.  During its original review of the applicant's case, the Board concluded the applicant's RE Code was administratively correct and in conformance with applicable regulations at the time of his separation.
3.  The applicant provides new argument indicating he has greatly matured since his discharge, and that he would be an asset to the Army as an infantryman in combat in support of his reconsideration request. 

4.  The applicant’s record shows that after having previously served in the Army National Guard between 22 January 1991 and 18 November 1993, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 19 November 1993.  

5.  The applicant's record shows that on 15 April 1994, he was command referred to the Army Drug and Alcohol Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) for alcohol dependency and initially enrolled in the Track I outpatient program. 

6.  On 13 May 1994, the applicant was enrolled in the ADAPCP Track II program as an outpatient, and on 15 June 1994, he was enrolled in the Tack III inpatient treatment program.   

7.  On 25 July 1994, the ADAPCP Clinical Director and the applicant's unit commander declared the applicant an ADAPCP rehabilitation failure, and on
8 August 1994, his unit commander notified the applicant that action was being initiated to separate him under the provisions of Chapter 9, Army Regulation 
635-200 based on his being declared an ADAPCP rehabilitation failure.  The unit commander cited the applicant's rehabilitation failure, which he indicated was due to the applicant's continued lack of insight into his alcoholism, lack of motivation, lack of investment into his own recovery, and his disrespect to staff members and passive aggressive behavior.  The unit commander also indicated that further rehabilitative efforts were not likely to succeed and therefore not warranted.  The unit commander recommended the applicant receive an honorable discharge (HD).  

8.  On 11August 1994, the applicant consulted with legal counsel and was advised of the basis of the contemplated separation action and of the effects of a GD.  Subsequent to this counseling the applicant completed an election of rights and elected not to submit statements in his own behalf. 

9.  On 15 August 1994, the Command Judge Advocate (JA) found no legal objection to the commander directing that the applicant be administratively discharged under the provisions of Chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200, due to the applicant’s ADAPCP rehabilitation failure.  The JA recommended the separation authority approve the recommendation for discharge; direct the applicant receive an HD and that the applicant not be transferred to the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR).  The separation authority approved the recommendations of the JA and directed the applicant’s discharge, and on 25 August 1994, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  
10.  The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant upon his discharge confirms he was separated under the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure.  It also confirms he received a HD and that based on the authority and reason for his separation, he was assigned a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JPD and an RE code of 4.  The applicant authenticated this document with his signature in Item 21 (Signature of Member Being Separated) on the date of his discharge.  

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 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.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (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 identifies the SPD code of JPD as the appropriate code to assign members separated under the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table establishes 
RE-4 as the proper reentry code to assign Soldiers separated with a SPD of JPD under these regulatory provisions. 

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's contention that he was not given a fair chance while enrolled in the ADAPCP and that his RE Code should be upgraded in order to allow him the opportunity to reenter the Army was carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.  

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was enrolled in ADAPCP and that attempts to rehabilitate him were made by enrolling him in Track 1 and Track II as an outpatient, and enrolling him in Track III as an inpatient.  All these efforts failed and he was declared a rehabilitation failure by both the ADAPCP Clinical Director and his unit commander.  It further shows that separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation, which includes the assignment of the SPD code of JPD and the RE code of 4.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

3.  By regulation, the RE-4 code assigned the applicant was the proper code to assign members separating under the provisions of Chapter 9, Army Regulation 
635-200, based on alcohol rehabilitation failure.  As a result, the RE-4 code assigned was properly assigned at the time of discharge and was and remains valid.  Absent any evidence of error or injustice in his separation processing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief. 

4.  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 or that would support amendment of the original Board decision in this case. 

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___x____  ___x____  ___x____  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 AR20060008078, dated 1 February 2007.




      _______ x_   _______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080014970



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080014970



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1