Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9708421
Original file (9708421.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved
1. The applicant requests that his general under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. He states, in effect, that since his discharge he has led a productive life by returning to school to earn a degree in respiratory therapy while maintaining a full-time job and raising his three year old daughter. He has maintained his sobriety for over four and a half years and feels that he has earned an honorable discharge.
2. The applicant’s military records show that he was born on 1 May 1966. He completed 12 years of formal education. He enlisted in the Regular Army on 13 November 1985 for 3 years. He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 19K (M1 Armor Crewman). He was honorably discharged on 21 March 1988 for the purpose of immediately reenlisting on 22 March 1988 for 4 years.

3. On 27 September 1991, the applicant was referred to the Fort Stewart, GA Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP). Initial screening had revealed the primary substance of abuse as cocaine and a diagnosis of dependency on cocaine was made.

4. On 1 November 1991, the Rehabilitation Team (the company level commander, ADAPCP counselor, soldier and others as appropriate) met and determined the applicant had problems significant enough to warrant enrollment in Track II. Rehabilitation required a minimum of counseling/therapy two times a month for the duration of the rehabilitation and urinalysis at least once a month for the duration. Attendance at least once weekly at Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous meetings was strongly recommended.

5. On 6 November 1991, the applicant tested positive for cocaine in a urinalysis test.

6. On 25 November 1991, the Rehabilitation Team determined that the applicant had not made satisfactory progress toward successful rehabilitation, that further rehabilitation efforts in a military environment were not justified in light of that lack of progress, and that discharge should be effected.

7. On 5 December 1991, the commander recommended the applicant’s discharge from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitative failure.

8. The applicant acknowledged notification and after consultation with counsel waived his right to have his case considered by a board of officers, waived
personal appearance before such a board, waived representation by counsel and elected to submit statements in his own behalf (no statements are available).

9. The applicant completed a separation physical and was found to be qualified for separation.

10. On 4 December 1991, the applicant received a mental status evaluation and was found to be mentally capable of understanding and participating in any proceedings. The examining psychiatrist also remarked that the applicant required in-patient treatment in Track III where he was scheduled for admission on 5 December 1991. He recommended Track III in-patient treatment prior to or at the time of the applicant’s separation from the military. He also cleared the applicant for any administrative action.

11. On 19 December 1991, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed he be given a general discharge under honorable conditions.

12. On 22 January 1992, he was discharged with a general discharge in pay grade E-4, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9. He had completed 6 years, 2 months and 10 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.

13. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 9 provides for the discharge of members based on alcohol or other drug abuse such as the illegal, wrongful or improper use of any controlled substance, alcohol or other drug when the soldier in enrolled in ADAPCP and the commander, in consultation with the rehabilitation team, determines that further rehabilitation efforts are not practical, rendering the soldier a rehabilitative failure.

CONCLUSIONS :

1. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable laws and regulations in effect at the time of his separation.

2. Although the Board takes cognizance of the applicant’s good post-service conduct, this factor does not warrant the relief requested and it would not be appropriate to change the records to show that the applicant was discharged honorably from the reenlistment commencing on 22 March 1988. However, it appears that his honorable discharge of 21 March 1988 should be considered as having been issued as a complete and unconditional separation.
3. The circumstances of the applicant’s honorable discharge on 21 March 1988 have worked an injustice upon him by depriving him of consideration for certain VA benefits for the preceding period of service.

4. In view of the foregoing, it would be appropriate to correct the applicant’s records as recommended below.

 RECOMMENDATION :

1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the applicant was eligible for a complete and unconditional separation from the military service at the time of his honorable discharge on 21 March 1988.
2. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE :
GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
GRANT FORMAL HEARING
DENY APPLICATION
                                                     CHAIRPERSON

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9708421C070209

    Original file (9708421C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 5 December 1991, the commander recommended the applicant’s discharge from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitative failure. However, it appears that his honorable discharge of 21 March 1988 should be considered as having been issued as a complete and unconditional separation. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by showing that the applicant was eligible for a complete and unconditional...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040010903C070208

    Original file (20040010903C070208.doc) Auto-classification: Denied

    LaVerne Douglas | |Member | The Board considered the following evidence: Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records. The applicant’s commander, in consultation with the ADAPCP Rehabilitation Team, determined that the applicant was not suited for continued rehabilitation efforts, declared the applicant to be a rehabilitation failure, recommended his immediate discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-00, Chapter 9, and recommended that the applicant receive a...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075052C070403

    Original file (2002075052C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It was noted that he must continue attending ADAPCP counseling and otherwise comply with the treatment plan until his discharge or face disciplinary action. On 9 June 1995, the applicant's commander notified the applicant he was being recommended for discharge from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9 because he failed to achieve successful rehabilitation and he failed to comply with the prescribed treatment plans and goals. He was still required to complete...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003516

    Original file (20090003516.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 21 April 1993, the applicant was notified by his company commander that he was being processed for separation under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 for alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure. The SPD code of JPD was the appropriate code for the applicant based on the guidance provided in this regulation for Soldiers separating under the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of alcohol abuse – rehabilitation failure. In addition, evidence of...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003546

    Original file (20090003546.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. The company commander stated the reasons for the proposed action were: (1) the applicant had been command referred to the ADAPCP for a positive urinalysis for marijuana, (2) he was initially enrolled in Track II and while enrolled in Track II he admittedly continued to use illegal drugs. Accordingly, on 26 May 1988 the applicant was discharged from active duty, in pay grade...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 199710155C070209

    Original file (199710155C070209.TXT) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY1997 | 199710155

    Original file (199710155.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2011 | 20110018722

    Original file (20110018722.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge. On 30 April 1992, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, due to alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure. _______ _ __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.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120020133

    Original file (20120020133.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The clinical director stated: * the applicant was command referred on 15 October 1987 * the initial screening/evaluation found the applicant had a significant history of alcohol abuse * the applicant was enrolled in Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) Track II on 24 March 1988 and subsequently changed to Track III on 13 April 1988 * the applicant was released early from in-patient services due to his failure to participate fully in the rehabilitation * the ADAPCP...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012492

    Original file (20100012492.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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...