MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION


	IN THE CASE OF:     
	


	BOARD DATE:            03 December 1998                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC97-09699

	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:  That the narrative reason for his discharge be changed to read administrative vice drug abuse rehabilitation failure.

APPLICANT STATES:  He did not use drugs while in the Army and was unjustly accused of using them; that he had a lot of social pressures but did not use drugs.  

In support of his application, he encloses a June 1985 Assistant Secretary of Defense memorandum which indicates that some urinalysis results reported during April 1982 and 1983 were legally insupportable; a July 1985 Department of the Army response to that memorandum; a letter from the Alcohol and Drug Control Officer, Fort Lewis, Washington, who is not familiar with the preceding memoranda nor the applicant’s claim that his urinalysis results may be tainted; and some letters of support attesting to the applicant’s good character.

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

He entered active duty on 17 November 1981 and, after training, was assigned to Fort Lewis, Washington.

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.  The initial screening and evaluation results made by the ADAPCP staff revealed the primary substance abuse was cannabis.  The applicant admitted to the staff his substance abuse related problems in the unit prior to enrollment in the program.

On 11 April 1983 the applicant’s commander imposed a bar to reenlistment on him for a record of nonjudicial punishment, failure to pay just debts, and positive urinalysis results for use of an illegal controlled substance.

On 3 October 1983 the applicant was reported by the ADAPCP as failing to comply with treatment plans and goals, having not made satisfactory progress toward rehabilitation, with evidence indicating continued use of illicit drugs.  It was recommended that the applicant’s commander declare him a rehabilitation failure and initiate discharge action.

On 25 October 1983 the applicant acknowledged that he had been recommended for separation due to controlled substance abuse rehabilitation failure.  He consulted with counsel and declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.  The separation authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  On 15 November 1983 the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9.  He had 1 year, 11 months and 29 days of creditable 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 soldiers 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.

On 11 June 1985 the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Professional Affairs and Quality Assurance notified Department of the Army (DA) that the Army/Air Force review of urinalysis results reported by its laboratories from April 1982 to November 1983 indicated that a number of results were legally unsupportable, and requested a summary of redress actions taken by individuals discharged from the Army.

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 sent to advise individuals concerned that they may petition the Army to review their records and receive corrective action, as appropriate.

On 10 September 1998 the Army Discharge Review Board upgraded the applicant’s discharge to honorable, but denied his request to change the narrative reason for discharge.

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 admitted to the ADAPCP that he had substance abuse problems prior to his enrollment in the program.  He was declared a rehabilitation failure due to his continued use of illicit drugs.

2.  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.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

3.  There is no indication that the applicant was one of the individuals notified by the Army in 1985 that he may petition for corrective action as a result of faulty or legally unsupportable urinalysis results.



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



INDEX

CASE ID
AC
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
YYYYMMDD
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD)
DATE OF DISCHARGE
YYYYMMDD
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR .  .  .  .  .  
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.