| Mr. Loren G. Harrell | Director | |
| Mr. Joseph A. Adriance | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor Jr. | Member | |
| Mr. James M. Alward | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the reason for his discharge be changed from drug-abuse-rehabilitation failure to a medical discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he was being treated for a back ailment and was taking medication at the time.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
On 11 August 1982 the applicant entered the Regular Army for 3 years at the age of 22. He successfully completed One Station Unit Training (OSUT) and the basic airborne course at Fort Benning, Georgia. Upon completion of training he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 11 B (Infantryman),the additional skill identifier (ASI) of P (Parachutist), and assigned to overseas duty in Germany for his first permanent duty station.
The applicant’s record shows that the highest grade he held on active duty was private/E-2 and documents no acts of valor, achievement, or service warranting special recognition.
On 31 May 1983 the applicant received a letter of reprimand for his illegal use of a controlled substance. This letter was based on a positive urine sample taken from the applicant during a unit test. The applicant’s sample tested positive for THC (marijuana). The letter contained a warning to the applicant that his further abuse of illegal substances could result in a recommendation for his separation from the service.
On 7 June 1983 the applicant was enrolled in Track II of the Army Drug and Alcohol Prevention Control Program (ADAPCP) based on his positive urinalysis.
On 6 October 1983 the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ, for wrongfully using marijuana based on a positive urine sample. His punishment for the offense included reduction to the rank of private/E-1, forfeiture of $150.00, and 14 days of extra duty and restriction.
On 18 October 1983 the Clinical Director of the counseling center prepared a synopsis of the applicant’s ADAPCP rehabilitation activities. The statement recommended the applicant be declared a rehabilitative failure from the ADAPCP. The clinical director cited the applicant’s failure to attend 2 of
3 scheduled counseling sessions; his positive test for THC, and his poor duty performance while enrolled in the program as the basis for his recommendation.
On 28 October 1983 the applicant’s unit commander declared the applicant an ADAPCP rehabilitation failure, and notified the applicant he intended to recommend his separation, under the provisions of chapter 9, AR 635-200. The applicant consulted counsel, and after being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation action and its effects, completed his election of rights and elected to submit a statement in his own behalf. The unit commander initiated the separation action citing the applicant’s continued drug abuse and lack of motivation to rehabilitate in the ADAPCP or the unit as his reasons for taking the action.
On 1 November 1983 the applicant underwent a complete separation physical examination. The clinical evaluation contained normal findings in all areas to include the applicant’s back. There were no physical profile limitations annotated and competent medical authorities found the applicant fully qualified for retention/separation with no medical prohibitions.
On 16 November 1983 the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s separation and directed he be issued a general, under honorable conditions discharge. Accordingly, on 6 December 1983 the applicant was discharged after completing 1 year, 3 months, and 26 days of active military service.
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a change to the reason for his discharge.
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. The Board concludes the applicant’s contentions, that he should have received a medical discharge because he was being treated by medical personnel and taking medication at the time are unfounded. The evidence of record clearly shows the applicant underwent a complete medical examination at the time of his discharge and was cleared for separation by competent medical authorities.
2. The evidence of record documents that 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. The documented record establishes that the applicant was properly counseled and afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome his problems.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705738C070209
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. Accordingly, on 6 December...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709699
On 2 March 1983 the applicant entered a rehabilitation program for drug abuse at the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) at Fort Lewis. On 25 October 1983 the applicant acknowledged that he had been recommended for separation due to controlled substance abuse rehabilitation failure. On 12 July 1985 the Army responded to the Assistant Secretary and reported that 76,314 positive urinalysis specimens were reviewed, and a total of 46,032 notification letters were...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020604
The immediate commander cited the specific reason as the applicant's positive drug tests and his poor potential for rehabilitation for drug abuse as evidenced by his continued abuse which rendered him a drug abuse rehabilitation failure. The panel's report entitled "Review of Urinalysis Drug Testing Program," dated 12 December 1983, concluded that the testing procedures used by all laboratories were adequate to identify drug abuse and found no significant evidence of false positive...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9709699C070209
On 2 March 1983 the applicant entered a rehabilitation program for drug abuse at the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) at Fort Lewis. On 25 October 1983 the applicant acknowledged that he had been recommended for separation due to controlled substance abuse rehabilitation failure. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION Loren G. Harrell Director INDEX CASE...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012492
The immediate commander cited the specific reason for this action as the applicant's poor potential for rehabilitation for alcohol or drug abuse and continued abuse rendered him an alcohol or drug abuse rehabilitation failure. On 26 July 1983, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of ADAPCP rehabilitation failure and recommended a General Discharge Certificate. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014369
He was recommended for administrative separation under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations). The immediate commander cited the specific reason as the applicant's positive drug tests and his poor potential for rehabilitation for drug abuse as evidenced by his continued abuse which rendered him a drug abuse rehabilitation failure. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued confirms he was discharged by reason...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199710155
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9606989C070209
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. On 19 April 1982 the applicants unit commander in consultation with ADAPCP personnel declared the applicant an ADAPCP rehabilitation failure. He further outlined the applicants history of alcohol related problems and his failure to satisfy the requirements for successful rehabilitation, as his reasons for taking the action.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090016396
On 28 March 1983, the unit commander notified the applicant of his intent to recommend that he be separated from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 9 (Alcohol or Other Drug Abuse Rehabilitation Failure) for his repeated abuse of drugs and being declared a rehabilitative failure in accordance with Army Regulation 600-85 (Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP)). In the applicant's statement,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080008466
The separation document (DD Form 214) issued to the applicant upon his discharge shows he was separated under the provisions of Chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of drug abuse - rehabilitation failure. Paragraph 9-1c states, in pertinent part, that when the commander determines a member who has never been enrolled in ADAPCP lacks the potential for further useful service and if found nondependent on drugs, the member will be considered for separation under the provisions of...