| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Vic Whitney | Analyst |
| Mr. Luther L. Santiful | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Joe R. Schroeder | Member | |
| Mr. Charles Gainor | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable and that the reason for his discharge as a drug abuse-rehabilitation failure be removed.
APPLICANT STATES: That he had one positive drug screen and never participated in any drug rehabilitation program. His general discharge was inequitable because of one isolated incident in 36 months of service.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted and entered active duty on 30 June 1980. While still in training he was punished twice under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for assault. His punishments included a fine, restriction with extra duty, and reduction to the pay grade of E-1.
He completed training as an air defense artillery fire control mechanic and was assigned to Fort Riley, Kansas. The unit commander provided the applicant’s drug and alcohol history as part of his recommendation for discharge. The commander noted that the applicant was command enrolled in the Army Drug and Alcohol Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) on 13 October 1981. He successfully completed the Track II program on 23 March 1982. The applicant was repeatedly counseled on his appearance, poor attitude, and problems with effective communication.
On 16 February 1983, the applicant was referred to the mental health activity based on problems with his inability to accomplish assigned tasks and learn the skills of his job. During counseling he admitted to occasional drug use. On 17 March 1983, the applicant was administered a routine drug test which tested positive for marijuana use.
On 22 June 1983, the applicant was declared a rehabilitative failure based on his substandard duty performance and continued abuse of drugs. The unit commander also informed him of his recommendation for separation as a drug abuse-rehabilitation failure. The applicant acknowledged receipt of this notification and elected not to consult with legal counsel or submit a statement on his own behalf. On 28 June 1983, the applicant was punished under Article 15, UCMJ for wrongful use of a controlled substance.
The commander forwarded his recommendation to the separation authority who approved the applicant’s separation under honorable conditions. Effective 19 July 1983, the applicant was separated under the authority of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9. The narrative reason for separation was shown as drug abuse-rehabilitation failure. He had 3 years and 20 days 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 individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse. A member who has been referred to ADAPCP for alcohol/drug abuse may be separated because 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 records clearly show that he was counseled on his poor duty performance and had been command enrolled in ADAPCP in October 1981 for prior drug abuse.
2. The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time. The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service. He was afforded the opportunity to consult with counsel and submit statements in his own behalf, but he declined to do so.
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 this 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
__ls___ ___js___ ___cg_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2001058563 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20011010 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19830719 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, CH 9 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A69.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.02 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2003 | 2003083526C070212
The applicant's commander recommended he be discharged from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure. On 18 August 1983, the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge under honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, alcohol rehabilitation failure. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120017293
The applicant states he does not want people to know about his alcohol abuse. The applicant was accordingly discharged on 22 February 1983. His narrative reason for separation and corresponding separation code were assigned based on the fact that he was discharged for being an alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 2004105976C070208
On 8 July 1985, the applicant's commander informed him that he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Two years is not an excessive period of time in which to expect an individual who was previously enrolled in ADAPCP to abstain from problem drinking.
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 | CY2005 | 20050016010C070206
The applicant requests that his records be corrected by upgrading his discharge to honorable. The appropriate separation authority directed the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, with the issuance of a general discharge. On 10 June 1983, the applicant was discharged under the above cited regulation with a general (under honorable conditions) discharge, for alcohol abuse, rehabilitation failure.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070004689
The applicants military service records show no evidence that the applicant was notified by the U.S. Army that a mistake was made regarding his discharge. Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), in effect at the time of the applicant's separation from active duty, set policies, standards, and procedures to ensure the readiness and competency of the force while providing for the orderly administrative separation of Soldiers for a variety of reasons. The...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705738
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 | 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 | CY2012 | 20120004917
On 15 August 1983, after consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for abuse of alcohol, and its effect. He was discharged in pay grade E-2 on 13 September 1983, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, by reason of alcohol abuse - rehabilitation failure, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge. There is no evidence he applied to the Army...
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...