BOARD DATE:	  19 December 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20130006521 


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 the separation program designator (SPD) and the reentry eligibility (RE) code on his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) with a separation date of 31 October 1988 be changed.  

2.  The applicant states the SPD and RE code do not reflect an honorable character of service.  Before and after 11 September 2001, he has attempted to reenter the service but was denied because of the isolated incident that led to his discharge.  He entered the Army at age 17 and he was impaired by his youth and immaturity.  It was his first time away from home.  He voluntarily self-referred to alcohol rehabilitation while he was in Germany.  He was involved in an isolated incident "using alcohol drunk on duty once."  The SPD and RE code have labeled him as an alcoholic for life.  He has never been arrested for any alcohol-related incidents and he has a commercial driver's license (CDL).

3.  The applicant provides:

* a letter, dated 4 November 1991, from the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB)
* his upgraded DD Form 214 with a separation date of 31 October 1988
* Parental/Guardian Consent for Enlistment
* a criminal history check, dated 19 March 2013, from the Jacksonville, FL, Sheriff's Office
* Security Officer, State of Florida identification card, expires 11 March 2014
* Florida CDL Class A driver's license, expires 25 October 2016
* Concealed Weapon or Firearm License, State of Florida, issued 23 June 2008, expires 8 August 2015
* birth certificates for his three children
* seven personal references
* his résumé
* 10 certificates
* transcripts from Ashford University, Clinton, IA

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.  On 21 September 1987, he enlisted in the Regular Army at the age of 17 with parental consent.  On 17 February 1988, he was assigned to A Company, 
6th Battalion, 502nd Infantry in Germany.

3.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on:

* 6 June 1988 for assaulting a private
* 29 September 1988 for being incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties as a result of wrongful previous overindulgence in intoxicating liquor

4.  On 11 October 1988, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him with a general discharge under honorable conditions under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations).  The commander stated the reasons for the proposed action were that the applicant:

* was self-referred to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP)
* initially enrolled in Track II of the program and was attending group and individual sessions regularly
* was transferred in July to Track III and entered the Residential Treatment Facility for treatment
* was involved in an incident involving alcohol within 45 days of being released from this treatment

5.  The commander advised the applicant of his right to:

* consult with counsel
* submit statements in his own behalf
* obtain copies of documents that would be sent to the separation authority
* withdraw any waiver of rights at any time prior to the date the discharge authority directs or approves his discharge

6.  On 11 October 1988, the applicant acknowledged that he had been advised by counsel:

* of the basis for the contemplated action against him under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 for alcohol rehabilitation failure
* that he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions was issued to him
* the rights available to him
* the effect of any action taken by him in waiving his rights

7.  He did not submit statements in his behalf for consideration.

8.  On 11 October 1988, the applicant's commander recommended him for discharge under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 due to alcohol rehabilitation failure and that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

  	a.  The commander stated the applicant was:

* self-referred to the ADAPCP in May 1988 
* initially enrolled in Track II of the program and transferred to Track III in 	July
* involved in an incident involving alcohol within 45 days of being 	released from this treatment
	
	b.  He stated the applicant had no desire to remain in the Army, as shown by his inability to control his alcohol problem.  He had resisted the attempts at rehabilitation and motivation by his chain of command.  Retention would only lead to future administrative separation under this chapter or other provisions of Army Regulations.
9.  On 18 October 1988, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 and directed that the applicant be furnished a General (under honorable conditions) Discharge Certificate.  

10.  On 31 October 1988, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 due to alcohol rehabilitation failure.  He had completed 1 year, 1 month, and 11 days of active service that was characterized as under honorable conditions.  The DD Form 214 issued at that time contained the following entries:

* Item 26 (Separation Code) - JPD
* Item 27 (Reenlistment Code) - RE 3-3C

11.  The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) to upgrade his discharge.  On 18 June 1991, the ADRB upgraded his discharge to an honorable discharge.  The ADRB concluded the administrative discharge proceedings contained limited-use information which was initially introduced by the Government and his discharge was based on those proceedings.  Inasmuch as Army regulations mandate the issuance of an honorable discharge in such circumstances, the ADRB voted to change the characterization of service to honorable.  The ADRB was satisfied the reason for discharge was proper and equitable.

12.  The original DD Form 214 was voided and the applicant was reissued a 
DD Form 214 showing the characterization of his service as honorable.  At the time the DD Form 214 was reissued, RE code 3C was no longer used.  His 
DD Form 214 contains the following entries:

* Item 26 - JPD
* Item 27 - 3

13.  He provided two letters, from the mayor and a citizen, thanking him for calling police when a neighbor was shooting at her dog.

14.  He provided five reference letters attesting to:

* him being a dependable team player with good judgment and a mature outlook that ensures a logical and practical approach to his endeavors
* his attention to detail and focus on duty being beyond reproach, always striving to put forth his best as he interacts with others on a daily basis
* his habit of not leaving the job until the task is complete
* him being a hard working, honest, and loyal young man
* his proving himself as a professional who is trustworthy and of high intelligence

15.  Pertinent Army regulations provide 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, in effect at the time, covered eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army (RA) and the U.S. Army Reserve.  

	a.  Chapter 3 of that regulation prescribed basic eligibility for prior service applicants for enlistment.  Table 3-1 (U.S. Army reentry eligibility codes) showed that an RE-3 applied to individuals who were not qualified for continued Army service, but the disqualification was waivable.  These individuals were ineligible for enlistment unless a waiver was granted.

	b.  Table 4-1 contained waivable moral and administrative disqualifications.
Line AG listed an applicant last discharged from the Army for drug or alcohol abuse, or as rehabilitation failure during last period of service.  For enlistment in the Regular Army, requests for a waiver may not be submitted until a 2-year period has elapsed since discharge. 

16.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes), then in effect, prescribed the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the SPDs to be used for these stated reasons.  The regulation showed that the SPD "JPD" as shown on the applicant’s reissued DD Form 214 specified the narrative reason for discharge as " Alcohol abuse - rehabilitation failure" and that the authority for discharge under this SPD was "Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9."

17.  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 was enrolled in the 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 limited use evidence was used.




DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends the SPD and RE code on his reissued DD Form 214 do not reflect an honorable discharge.  He contends his youth, immaturity, and his being away from home for the first time were factors in his ability to serve in the Army.

2.  The applicant’s age at time of enlistment was noted.  However, many Soldiers enlisted at a young age and went on to complete their enlistments.  Therefore, the age of the applicant cannot be used as a mitigating factor.

3.  The ADRB upgraded the characterization of his discharge to honorable because his discharge proceedings contained limited use evidence.  Use of limited use evidence limits the characterization of the discharge to honorable.  However, this does not change the reason for discharge or the RE code assigned.

4.  He was processed for discharge under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 due to his alcohol rehabilitation failure.  Therefore, the assignment of the SPD "JPD" is correct.  Discharge under these provisions does provide for the issuance of an honorable discharge.

5.  Because of the reason for his discharge, he was not qualified for continued Army service.  However, this disqualification was waivable.  Therefore, the assignment of an RE code of 3 on his reissued DD Form 214 is correct.

6.  In view of the above, the SPD and RE code on his reissued DD Form 214 are consistent with the reason for his discharge.  There is no error or injustice in the assignment of his SPD or RE code.

7.  Letters submitted by the applicant attesting to his good post-service conduct and willingness to serve his country were noted.  However, these letters do not mitigate the fact that the applicant's RE code as assigned is correct in accordance with the regulation in effect at the time of his discharge.

8.  The applicant is advised that although his RE code 3 was properly assigned, this does not mean that he is totally disqualified from returning to military service. If he desires to enlist, he should contact a local recruiter who can best advise him on his eligibility for returning to military service.  These individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the service at the time and may process enlistment waivers for the applicant’s RE code.  However, this does not guarantee the applicant will be accepted by any of the services for enlistment.  
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)                                         AR20130006521



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20130006521



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1