MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


	IN THE CASE OF:       
	


	BOARD DATE:            24 November 1998
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC97-10155

	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.




Member

	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 he be reinstated to active duty or 
be entitled to retirement benefits.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was wrongfully discharged and 
that he was terminated 4 months early from a year long follow-up program 
after receiving treatment at Fort Gordon and was released early due to personnel error.  The Medical Department Activity Command (MEDDAC) commander in charge of the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Control Program (ADAPCP)
was informed to reassign the program to another physician under his command. However, he chose to remain in charge of the current program, and was also the applicant’s reviewer on this evaluation report and responsible for reviewing the applicant’s chart.  The applicant felt that he was unable to discuss his case with the MEDDAC commander and was warned that what he might say would reflect on his evaluation report.  He also states that his commander and first sergeant did not use professional judgment, but used their own personal vicious judgment against him.  In support of his application he submit several character references and certificates.

COUNSEL CONTENDS:  That the applicant was an excellent soldier who would
have most likely completed his twenty years of service had he not succumbed 
to alcohol.  He also stated that the applicant submitted post service documentation showing that he is currently working in a position similar to the position that he held while on active duty and that he has been successful in his career choice.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 1 October 1973 for a period of 3 years as medical laboratory specialist .  He continued to serve through a series of continuos reenlistments.

On 9 February 1989, the applicant was enrolled in ADAPCP Track II, outpatient counseling by his commander for alcohol abuse.  He attended 12 hours of substance abuse education seminars, and five group sessions.

On 21 April 1989, the applicant was admitted to the hospital for detoxification from alcohol abuse.  His physician recommended Track III, inpatient residential
treatment for alcohol abuse, continuous.  At that time, the commander and the rehabilitation team decided that the applicant enter Track III, residential treatment, at Dwight David Eisenhower Army Medical Center (DDEAMC) at
Fort Gordon, Georgia on 1 May 1989.


On 16 June 1989, the applicant returned from Track III, and began Track III
Follow-up Treatment, from which his Follow-up Plan was developed, which
included antabuse therapy to ensure abstinence, indefinitely: a minimum of
three AA (alcoholics anonymous) meetings per week, indefinitely: and weekly group therapy sessions at the ADAPCP for a period of one year from entering Track III.

On 3 April 1990, the applicant was terminated form the ADAPCP Track III 
Follow-up and declared a rehabilitation success by the rehabilitation team, led by the commander.

On 19 April 1990, the applicant was admitted to the hospital for detoxification for alcohol abuse.  The commander and rehabilitation team agreed that the applicant should be enrolled for the second time in ADAPCP Track II outpatient
counseling.  The applicant agreed to have his supervisor monitor antabuse therapy to ensure abstinence, attendance at a minimum of five AA meetings per week as well as required group sessions at ADAPCP, and scheduled 1 time per week.  Enrollment was established for a minimum of 90 days, with possibility of
continuing to 360 days, depending upon the applicant’s progress.  The following group sessions at ADAPCP were missed by the applicant and considered unexcused:  18 June 1990; 23 July 1990; 30 July 1990; 6 August 1990; and 
13 August 1990. 

On 26 July 1990, the first sergeant reported that the applicant was being held
in civilian confinement under $5,000 bond, due to burglary and assault charges,
stemming from an alcohol related incident on 25 July 1990.

On 1 August 1990, the applicant admitted that he had began drinking alcohol, while taking antabuse, the weekend of 21 July 1990 and continued through
24 July 1990.

On 3 August 1990, the commander, in consultation with the rehabilitation team, determined that further rehabilitation efforts were not practical and declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure and requested a summary of rehabilitation activities in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9.  On that same
day the applicant was informed by the rehabilitation team that he would remain
enrolled in the Track II for continued support and as encouraged to continued
with his Treatment Plan, and the applicant agreed.  

On 7 August 1990, the psychologist submitted a summary of the applicant’s 
rehabilitation efforts.  She indicated that the applicant’s prognosis for a successful rehabilitation was poor.

On 7 August 1990, the applicant was counseled by his first sergeant on
alcohol rehabilitation.  He informed the applicant that he was being dropped
from the Track II Program as a failure.  He encouraged the applicant to seek
assistance on his own and that the drug center was still available to him for
assistance and advice.   He further stated that it would be to the applicant’s advantage to continue treatment.

On 13 August 1990, the applicant was counseled by his supervisor for being detained by the Sheriff’s Department on 24 July 1990 for an incident which involved his use of alcohol.  The applicant’s supervisor informed him that he was being relieved as the NCOIC of the Department of Pathology due to his continued abuse of alcohol despite long term rehabilitation efforts was inconsistent with the conduct and responsibility required of a NCO of his rank, experience. and training.  

On 5 September 1990, the commander consulted with the rehabilitation team and reviewed pertinent facts as to the applicant’s successful progression in the program.  The commander made a final determination that further participation
in the program would not be beneficial for the applicant and the US Army.  She also determined that treatment could not be successfully completed on active duty and that the applicant would require more extensive care in the civilian community. 

On 1 October 1990, the applicant was notified by his commander that he was
initiating action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 9, for a rehabilitation failure. 

After consulting with counsel, he waived consideration of his case and personal appearance before a board of officer.  He requested representation by counsel and opted not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

On 11 October 1990, the commander submitted his recommendation to 
to separate the applicant from service prior to his expiration of his term of service (ETS) under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for
a rehabilitation failure.

On 30 November 1990, the applicant submitted his a request for a conditional waiver in which he agreed to waive consideration of his case by a board of officers contingent on his receiving a characterization of service or description of
separation no less favorable than honorable.  



The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for separation on 
18 December 1990 and directed that his service be characterized as
honorable.

Accordingly, he was honorably discharged on 28 December 1990 under the 
provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for alcohol abuse - rehabilitation failure.  He had served 17 years, 2 months, and 28 days of
total active service.

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 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.  

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.  The applicant’s contention that he was wrongfully discharged and terminated 4 months early from a year long follow-up program is without merit.  The applicant received the benefit of such a program, however, he was given
numerous opportunities to be rehabilitated, and failed.  

2.  There is no evidence to show that he was treated unfairly.

3.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

5.  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.




6.  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

___gp___  __rwg___  __cla  ___  DENY APPLICATION




						Loren G. Harrell
						Director