MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


	IN THE CASE OF: 
	     


	BOARD DATE:             16 September 1998                 
	DOCKET NUMBER:     AC-96-06989


	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.



	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A -  Application for correction of military 
                             records
	Exhibit B -  Military Personnel Records (including
	                  advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  In effect, that the narrative reason for his discharged be changed to eliminate the term alcohol abuse.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that the reason for discharge no longer applies because he has been alcohol free for 10 years; that he attends counseling; that he takes antibuse; and that the narrative reason for his discharge has hindered his ability to get loans and to get better employment.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

On 11 February 1981 the applicant reenlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years while at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri.  At the time of reenlistment the applicant had completed 2 years, 6 months, and 24 days of honorable service, attained the rank of specialist/E-4; held military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman); and had been awarded the Army Service Ribbon and the Good Conduct Medal.

The applicant’s record for the period of service under review documents no acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition.  His record does include a history of alcohol related disciplinary infractions.

On 27 April 1981 the applicant was apprehended by the military police for his involvement in a domestic disturbance.  This incident was deemed to be alcohol related.  On 2 December 1981 the applicant was absent from his place of duty which was also alcohol use related.  Sometime during the month of January 1992 the applicant was apprehended by the Seaside, California police for driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol.

On 4 January 1982 the applicant was enrolled in the Army Drug and Alcohol Prevention Control Program (ADAPCP) based on the alcohol related incidents listed in the preceding paragraph for which he received an exemption.

During his enrollment in ADAPCP the applicant was counseled 20 times by the his case worker.  The Alcohol and Drug Control Officer completed a report of rehabilitative progress on the applicant in which his progress in the program was rated as unsatisfactory.  

On 19 April 1982 the applicant’s unit commander in consultation with ADAPCP personnel declared the applicant an ADAPCP rehabilitation failure.  The unit commander cited the applicant’s failing to meet the requirements established by his rehabilitation team for the successful completion of the ADAPCP as the reason for his action.


On 29 April 1982 the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article15 of the UCMJ, for failing to attend his morning formation on 7 April 1982, due to his being intoxicated.

On 21 May 1982 the applicant’s unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action, under the provisions of chapter 9, AR 635-200 based on his being declared an ADAPCP rehabilitation failure.  The commander notified the applicant he intended to recommend he be issued an honorable discharge based on his record of service.  He further outlined the applicant’s history of alcohol related problems and his failure to satisfy the requirements for successful rehabilitation, as his reasons for taking the action.

On 11 June 1982 the appropriate authority approved the discharge and directed the applicant be issued an honorable discharge.  Accordingly, on 7 July 1992 the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year 4 months, and 27 days of the period of service under review and a total of 3 years, 11 months, and 21 days of active military service.

There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within the 15 year statute of limitations. 

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. 

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  While the Board has taken cognizance of the applicant's employment problems, and his good post-service conduct; none of these factors, either individually or in sum, warrant the relief requested.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) and was aware of the consequences of any action which would demonstrate any inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program.  As a result of the applicant’s actions and after consultation with the drug and alcohol abuse counselor, the command declared the soldier a rehabilitation failure. 

2.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulation applicable at the time.  The reason for and the character of the discharge are commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service.

3.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION




						Loren G. Harrell
						Director