Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100007397
Original file (20100007397.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  27 July 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100007397 


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 that his reentry code 4 (RE-4) be changed to a more favorable code.

2.  The applicant states that:

   a.  improper and ineffective rehabilitation techniques were used;

   b.  ten years have passed since his discharge, he is a better man now, and he shouldn’t be barred from pursuing his lifelong dream;

   c.  he recently learned that his RE-4 code prohibits him from serving his country again;

   d.  since his discharge he has been doing volunteer work which includes working with children in drug prevention using his personal experiences; and

   e.  it is his goal to reenter military service and help his fellow Americans in any way possible.

3.  The applicant provides the following documents:

* self-authored statement
* photograph
* 
DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* three letters of support

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant’s record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 12 August 1999.  He was trained in, awarded, and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 11B (Infantryman).

3.  A urine specimen taken from the applicant on 23 March 2000 tested positive for the drug “THC.”

4.  On 5 April 2000, the applicant was command referred to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) for drug dependency.  He was enrolled in the ADAPCP as an outpatient on 11 April 2000.

5.  On 12 September 2000, the applicant’s urine specimen collected on 21 August 2000, tested positive for THC a second time.

6.  On 24 October 2000, the ADAPCP Clinical Director indicated that:

* the applicant attended a two-day treatment orientation during which he  expressed no commitment to discontinuing his pattern of marijuana use

* the applicant attended two out of twelve group sessions during which he acknowledged the likelihood of further adverse consequences if he continued marijuana use, but remained noncommittal about remaining drug free
* the applicant’s continued marijuana use and poor attendance at therapy sessions suggest minimal investment in making the behavioral changes necessary to remain drug free
7.  On 2 November 2000, the unit commander notified the applicant that action was being initiated to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel, chapter 9, based on his being declared an ADAPCP rehabilitation failure and recommended the applicant receive a general discharge (GD).

8.  On 2 November 2000, 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 2 November 2000, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge and directed he receive a GD.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 15 November 2000.

10.  The DD Form 214 issued to the applicant upon his discharge confirms he was separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, by reason of drug rehabilitation failure.  It also confirms he received a GD and that based on the authority and reason for his separation, he was assigned a Separation Program Designator (SPD) code of JPC and an RE-4.

11.  The applicant provided three letters of support from individuals who speak to his upstanding character and support his request for reenlistment into military service.

12.  On 22 October 2003, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) voted to upgrade the applicant’s GD to an HD based on the use of limited-use information during the applicant’s discharge process.  The ADRB determined that the applicant was appropriately assigned the code of RE-4 based on the authority and reason for his discharge and denied his request to change his reentry code.

13.  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.  Army policy states that an honorable or general discharge is authorized depending on the applicant’s overall record of service.  However, an honorable discharge is required if limited-use information is introduced in the discharge process.

14.  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 JPC as the appropriate code to assign members separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, by reason of drug 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 JPC under these regulatory provisions.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends his RE-4 should be corrected because he was provided improper and ineffective rehabilitation techniques and because he desires to reenter military service and serve his country.

2.  The evidence of record confirms that attempts to rehabilitate him the applicant were made by enrolling him in the ADAPCP.  This effort failed and he was declared a rehabilitation failure by the ADAPCP Clinical Director and his commander.  It further shows that separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation, which includes the assignment of the SPD code of JPC and the RE-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 Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, based on drug 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.

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 for correction of the records of the individual concerned.



      ___________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)                                         AR20100007397



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100007397



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000404

    Original file (20090000404.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He requested a copy of his corrected DD Form 214 and found that the reason for discharge shows "drug abuse - rehabilitation failure." On 10 November 1983, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure. On 27 August 1997, the ABCMR corrected the applicant's records by deleting from his military personnel and medical records any and all references to the urinalyses of the specimens he submitted on 4 January 1983...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002328

    Original file (20120002328.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant states: * In April 2008, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) granted him relief by deleting from his records any reference to a urinalysis specimen tested on 6 April 1983 * The Board voided his chapter 9 discharge with a general discharge and issued him an honorable discharge * The Board also granted him service credit and pay through the original expiration of his term of service (ETS) date * The reason for the correction was that the scientific test...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2008 | AR20080006331

    Original file (AR20080006331.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of AR 635-200, Chapter 9, alcohol or other drug rehabilitation failure. Furthermore, according to AR 635-5-1, Separation Program Designator (SPD) codes, the narrative reason for separation should have been "alcohol rehabilitation failure" and the separation (SPD) code "JPD." Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to:...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013822

    Original file (20060013822.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states that he was issued a separation code of “JPC” which is indicative of a drug and/or alcohol rehabilitation failure and he was never offered any type of rehabilitation, nor was he afforded the opportunity to consult with an attorney to discuss his options. Although the record of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) is not present in the available records, his records show that he was reduced to the pay grade of E-2 on 16 July 1987.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005902

    Original file (20080005902.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant upon his discharge shows he was separated under the provisions of Chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of drug abuse - rehabilitation failure. The evidence of record confirms that the applicant was declared an ADAPCP rehabilitation failure based on alcohol abuse, and not drug abuse.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000167

    Original file (20090000167.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The Department of the Army SPD/RE Cross Reference Table in effect at the time of the applicant's discharge indicated that RE-3 was the proper code to assign members separated under the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200 with an SPD code of JPC. The evidence of record confirms the applicant's discharge processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation, and that...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2014 | AR20140002679

    Original file (AR20140002679.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 10 June 2002, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, for drug rehabilitation failure. Army policy states that an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized depending on the applicant’s overall record of service. No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: No Board Vote: Character Change: 5 No Change: 0 Reason Change: 5 No Change: 0 (Board member names available upon request) Board...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060001293C070205

    Original file (20060001293C070205.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    The evidence shows that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse - rehabilitation failure. The separation code of "JKK" specified the narrative reason for discharge as "misconduct, such as abuse of illegal drugs" and the authority for discharge under this SPD was "Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14-12c(2). The additional separation code of "JPC" specified the narrative reason for discharge as "drug abuse – rehabilitation...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130012080

    Original file (AR20130012080.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    IN THE CASE OF: Mr. BOARD DATE: 21 February 2014 CASE NUMBER: AR20130012080 ___________________________________________________________________________ Board Determination and Directed Action After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and the Discussion and Recommendation that follows, the Board noted that the government introduced a document into the discharge process that is limited use evidence. On 15 May 2013, the separation...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013119

    Original file (20100013119.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 20 April 1989, he was notified by his unit commander of a pending action to separate him from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 9, by reason of drug abuse rehabilitation failure. Army Regulation 635-200 further states, in pertinent part, 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. Those individuals can...