For all of you with an RE-code 4, there is a chance!!!
It seems that people that were discharged for example with an RE-Code 4 for alcohol or drugs that were not given a hearing because they had less than 6 years in service were indeed allowed to have a hearing. Not having a hearing was a basic right as even though the discharges are honorable, they have derogatory information (Drug Rehab Failure, alcohol rehab, misconduct, etc.)
If you were not given a hearing when you were discharged, you have a chance!
This guy was actually able to get his records cleared and even received back pay!
http://veterancourtcodes.com/vccpdf/Casey%20vs%20US.pdf (Page 15)
Look at this case (Casey v. US)
“In the plaintiff's (Casey) argument he asserts that, he was entitled to a hearing, since the discharge certificate he received included stigmatizing or derogatory information on its face. Specifically, the plaintiff points to his DD 214 discharge certificate in which the character of his service is listed as "Honorable," but the authority and reason for discharge includes the coded designation "JPB," which stands for personal abuse of alcohol and other drugs (In my case Drug Rehab Failure). The plaintiff (Casey) claims that, because the code stigmatizes his service and discharge in the eyes of society, elementary considerations of constitutional and administrative due process required that he be given a hearing, even though the Army regulations under which he was discharged did not provide for such a hearing.
The defendant (United States) states in its opposition that the plaintiff received the highest discharge available to a serviceman and, thus, due process considerations do not require a hearing. Further, the defendant asserts that a coded designation on the face of the discharge certificate cannot be stigmatizing, since the code is essentially private information known only within the Department of Defense and not understood by the general public.
A "stigma" may attach to a servicemember's discharge either from the characterization of the discharge or from the reasons recorded for the discharge, if such reasons present a "derogatory connotation to the public at large." Birt v.United States, supra, 180 Ct.Cl. at 914. This Court's predecessor, the U.S. Court of Claims, previously held, in Keef v. United States, 185 Ct.Cl. 454 (1968), that:
As a general rule, if the regulation pursuant to which a serviceman is honorably discharged does not, by its own terms, require notice and a hearing, they are required only if the discharge, albeit honorable, either casts a stigma on the serviceman or has some derogatory connotation.
Finally, a word should be said regarding the defendant's argument that coded designators on DD-214's are not stigmatizing, since the codes are private information known only within the Department of Defense and are not known or understood by the general public at large. While this may generally be true, the critical problem with this defense is that the important segments of society, i.e., prospective employers, do know and understand the importance of separation codes. Hence, a stigma *243 results. This is especially true of large potential employers. The Federal Government, state and local governments, and large corporate employers routinely ask discharged servicemen for their DD-214's, and, if they do not receive satisfactory answers from the serviceman, one assumes that they routinely ask the Department of Defense what those codes mean. Even if the codes are "for official use only," one has the distinct impression that the codes are widely disseminated. In any event, in view of the huge number of people in this country that have at one time or another in their life been associated with the armed forces of this country, this Court cannot give credence to the defendant's argument. The truth of the matter is that military separation codes are known, understood and available to the part of society that count-i.e., prospective employers. Thus, discharges that include stigmatizing and derogatory information must only be given to servicemen who have been afforded elementary due process rights. Accordingly, the plaintiff's discharge for drug and alcohol abuse casts a stigma on the plaintiff that required the plaintiff to have been given a hearing prior to his discharge.
For the following reasons, this Court agrees with the plaintiff (Casey) that his discharge included stigmatizing information and that elementary considerations of due process required a hearing prior to the plaintiff's discharge.
For the reasons discussed above, the plaintiff's (Casey) motion for summary judgment is granted, and the defendant's (United States) motion for summary judgment is denied.
The plaintiff (Casey) is entitled to have his records corrected to show that he constructively served on active duty in the Army from the date of his improper discharge (November 8, 1976) to the expiration date of his then current reenlistment (September 12, 1979), and is entitled to all back pay, allowances, and benefits for that period of constructive active duty service. Further, the plaintiff is entitled to have his records corrected to reflect his honorable discharge on September 12, 1979, and his voluntary retirement in the pay grade of E-7, after 20 years of active duty service, with the appropriate back retirement benefits due from September 12, 1979 through the date of judgment. The Secretary of the Army is hereby directed to accomplish the above corrections in the plaintiff's records. Plaintiff is entitled to retirement benefits thereafter in accordance with the law.
Report (0) (0) |
earlier