BOARD DATE:	  25 October 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110008196


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 her reentry eligibility (RE) code be changed from RE code 4 to RE code 2.

2.  The applicant states she was told that enrolling in the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) would not harm her military career.  She states that she completed the ASAP and would like to continue the training that she started in the military.

3.  The applicant provides:

* “REDD Request Data”
* two copies of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* Certificate of Completion, dated 27 August 2010

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 17 April 2009.  She was ordered to initial active duty training effective 21 September 2009.  She completed training as an operating room specialist.

2.  On 22 April 2010, she accepted nonjudicial punishment for being found drunk while on duty as a surgical technologist student.


3.  On 3 July 2010, the applicant’s commander was notified by the ASAP Director that she (the applicant) was not capable of realistically fulfilling her duty, let alone be involved in patient care and based on Army Regulation 600-85 (The Army Substance Abuse Program), she met the criteria for Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Separations), chapter 9, rehabilitation failure.  In the notification, the ASAP Director stated “The above named Soldier presented to the ASAP Clinic Triage on 3 March 2010 as a self-referral after requesting help for her alcohol use.  Command noted the service member (SM) was an operating room tech student at the time, and must cease her dependence on alcohol to be an effective emergency room tech and give safe care to patients.  SM was evaluated 23 March 2010 and subsequently enrolled 31 March 2010 with a diagnosis of alcohol dependence, following post-detoxification appointment of 30 March 2010.  SM has had two EACH intensive care unit (ICU) detoxification hospitalizations.  The first, the aforementioned March stay, and the second in May of this year, having identified blood alcohol level (BALs) of .415 and .310, respectively.”

4.  The ASAP Director stated in the notification “SM was referred to the Community 1 April 2010 for intensive outpatient treatment (IOP) following her initial ICU detoxification.  SM attended her outpatient treatment, completing 15 of 18 required group sessions before relapsing, leading to her second ICU detoxification.  Following her second post-discharge appointment, SM admitted to having consumed hand sanitizer.  As a result, SM was considered appropriate for inpatient residential treatment and admitted to a 28 day chemical dependency program 18 May 2010 with her subsequent release 14 June 2010.  SM was seen post-discharge 15 June 2010 and required to complete her remaining IOP sessions in the Community and determined appropriate for continued aftercare at ASAP, and referred for medication management follow up.  SM recently admitted to drinking a pint of alcohol over the July 4th holiday weekend, which would be her third identified relapse since her contact with ASAP.”

5.  The ASAP Director further stated “At present, SM proves to be a liability to her unit and the Army due to her inability to remain sober after having exhausted the levels of care made available to her.  Her previously noted BALs are usually indicative of long standing chronic alcohol consumption.  Regardless, SM has had reasonable opportunity for rehabilitation through provision of intensive outpatient and inpatient residential treatment over the course of the past 4 months.  Her progress in ASAP, while admittedly completing her treatment programs in the Community, is marginal and her prognosis is guarded at best.”


6.  On 28 July 2010, the applicant was counseled for ASAP failure.  She was notified that she was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, due to alcohol or drug rehabilitation failure. She acknowledged receipt of the notification on 24 August 2010.  

7.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a general discharge.

8.  On 17 September 2010, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, due to alcohol rehabilitation failure.  The DD Form 214 she received shows she completed 11 months and 27 days of net active service this period.  She received a RE code 4 and separation code JPD (alcohol rehabilitation failure).

9.  The applicant submits a certificate showing she completed the Parkview Chemical Dependency Unit’s Impatient and Intense Outpatient Treatment Programs.

10.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program) states 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, U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard.  Chapter 3 prescribes basic eligibility for prior-service applicants for enlistment and includes a list of Armed Forces RE codes.  An RE code 4 applies to persons who have a non-waivable disqualification.

11.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD Codes)) prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives) and reasons for the separation of members from active military service and the SPD code to be used for these stated reasons.

12.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table provides instructions for determining the RE code for Regular Army Soldiers and Reserve Component Soldiers separated for cause.  The SPD code JPD has a corresponding 
RE code 4.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that her RE code 4 should be changed to an RE code 2.  However, there is no error or injustice in her assigned RE code.

2.  Her records show she was discharged for rehabilitation failure.  She was assigned an RE code 4 and an SPD code of JPD based on her reason for discharge.

3.  Although the applicant desires to reenter the military, it is insufficient justification for granting the relief requested.

4.  As stated by the ASAP Director, the applicant proved to be a liability to her unit and the Army due to her inability to remain sober after having exhausted the levels of care made available to her.  She was unable to maintain her sobriety and as a result she received an RE code in accordance with the applicable regulation.

5.  In view of the foregoing, her request should be denied.

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)                                         AR20090005994



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110008196



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1