Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060476C070421
Original file (2001060476C070421.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved
PROCEEDINGS


         IN THE CASE OF:
        

         BOARD DATE: 29 January 2002
         DOCKET NUMBER: AR2001060476


         I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

Mr. Carl W. S. Chun Director
Ms. Maria C. Sanchez Analyst

The following members, a quorum, were present:

Mr. Arthur A. Omartian Chairperson
Mr. Melvin H. Meyer Member
Ms. Karen A. Heinz Member

         The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

         The Board considered the following evidence:

         Exhibit A - Application for correction of military
records
         Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
         advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS :

1. The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.


2. The applicant was formerly on active duty and was honorably discharged on 26 August 1983 as a drug abuse rehabilitation failure, prior to the normal expiration of his term of service (ETS), which would have been 13 January 1985.

3. While on active duty the applicant participated in the Army’s drug testing program. The specimen he submitted on 14 April 1983 was tested by urinalysis and found to contain evidence of illegal drugs.

4. On 6 May 1983, the applicant was referred for treatment in the local Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP). As such, he was informed that he must abstain from further use of illegal drugs, that he must not abuse alcohol, and that he must cooperate in counseling and education programs.

5. On 7 May 1983, the applicant submitted a urine specimen, which tested positive for illegal drugs. As a result, he was declared a rehabilitation failure. Thereafter, he was recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, as a drug abuse rehabilitation failure. The discharge authority approved the recommendation on 4 August 1983 and directed that an Honorable Discharge Certificate be issued.

6. On 3 June 1983, the applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, solely on the basis of the previously mentioned drug urinalysis.

7. On 16 June 1983, a bar to reenlistment was imposed against him based solely on the previously mentioned drug urinalysis.

8. The applicant requests, in effect, correction of his military records by voiding his discharge and by showing that he served until his scheduled ETS. He further requests that any disciplinary or adverse administrative actions taken as a result of the positive urinalysis be set aside, and that all rights, privileges and property he lost as a result of such actions be restored.

9. In 1983, a “Blue Ribbon” Panel of experts in toxicology and drug testing was established to evaluate the scientific and administrative procedures used by Army laboratories where urine specimens were tested. 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 urinalysis reports. However, the panel did find that a percentage of previously reported positive urinalysis results was not scientifically or legally supportable for use in disciplinary or administrative actions.

10. Subsequently, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel established a team of military chemists and lawyers called the “Urinalysis Records Review Team.” This team reviewed available records of all positive urinalysis results reported from 27 April 1982 through 31 October 1983.

11. The review team specifically examined the test results of the specimens submitted by the applicant and determined that either the scientific test procedures or the supporting chain of custody documents used, or both, were deficient. Consequently, a conclusion that the applicant’s urine specimens contained illegal drugs would not be legally and/or scientifically supportable.

12. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for 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.

CONCLUSIONS:

1. The positive urinalyses of the specimens submitted by the applicant on the dates indicated were either legally or scientifically unsupportable and could not rightfully serve as the basis for adverse administrative or disciplinary actions.

2. Continued reference to the unsupportable urinalyses would be prejudicial and improper. Accordingly, it would be in the best interest of justice to delete from his military personnel and medical records, any and all references to the positive urinalyses of the specimens he submitted on 14 April and 7 May 1983.

3. That NJP imposed upon the applicant on the date indicated was based solely on a positive drug urinalysis that cannot be scientifically or legally supported for use in disciplinary actions. Accordingly, the subject NJP is unjust and should be set aside. All rights, privileges and property lost as a result of the subject NJP should be restored.

4. Likewise the bar to reenlistment was imposed solely on the basis of an unsupportable urinalysis. Accordingly, it should be lifted and removed from his records.

5. The applicant was properly referred to the ADAPCP for treatment and rehabilitation. He was declared a rehabilitation failure solely on the basis of an unsupportable urinalysis. Accordingly, that declaration, and the discharge which was based upon it, were improper and should be voided. Any other actions based solely on the unsupportable urinalysis should also be corrected.
6. Since the applicant’s enlistment would not have expired until 13 January 1985, and since there is good reason to conclude that, but for the unsupportable urinalysis, and the declaration that he was a rehabilitation failure, he would have remained on active duty to complete that enlistment, it appears appropriate and proper to void his current discharge, to grant his full active duty credit through his scheduled ETS and to issue him an Honorable Discharge Certificate, effective the date of his scheduled ETS.

7. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected:

         a. by voiding the honorable discharge which was issued to the individual concerned on 26 August 1983, and by showing that he continued to serve on active duty until 13 January 1985, when he was separated from the service with an Honorable Discharge Certificate, by reason of expiration of term of service, under the provisions of chapter 4, Army Regulation 635-200;

         b. by returning to him all benefits and property he lost as the result of his discharge under honorable conditions;

         c. by setting aside the nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, which was imposed on 3 June 1983, and by restoring to him all rights, privileges, and property lost as the result of such nonjudicial punishment;

         d. by removing from his Official Military Personnel File the record of proceedings of nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, administered on 3 June 1983, and all documents related thereto;

         e. by lifting and removing the bar to reenlistment imposed upon him on 16 June 1983; and

         f. by deleting from his military personnel and medical records any and all references to the urinalyses of the specimens he submitted on 14 April and 18 August 1983.

BOARD VOTE:

__mm___ ___ao___ __kah___ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION




                  ____Arthur A. Omartian____
                  CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID AR2001060476
SUFFIX
RECON YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED 2002/01/29
TYPE OF DISCHARGE HD
DATE OF DISCHARGE 1983/08/26
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY AR 635-200
DISCHARGE REASON
BOARD DECISION GRANT
REVIEW AUTHORITY
ISSUES 1. 680 A69.00/144.6900
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.


Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072382C070403

    Original file (2002072382C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. On 6 May 1983, the applicant was recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure. The applicant was discharged on 27 May 1983.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9611973C070209

    Original file (9611973C070209.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    As a result, he was declared a rehabilitative failure and subsequently discharged under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, as a drug abuse rehabilitative failure on 8 June 1983. On 10 March 1989 the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge, a change in the narrative reason for separation, and compensation for time lost. The ADRB further determined that after removal of the positive urinalyses...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066456C070402

    Original file (2002066456C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 14 June 1983, the applicant was recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure. The applicant’s contention that his discharge should be upgraded because his positive urinalysis did not meet all scientific or legal requirements for use in disciplinary or administrative action is not supported by the evidence of record. Therefore, the Board has declared that both of these specimens are unsupportable and that all...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026535

    Original file (20100026535.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant states: * His narrative reason for separation should be changed to "Convenience of the Army" instead of "Alcohol Abuse Rehabilitation Failure" and, as a result, change of his separation code and RE code as appropriate * No supportable urinalysis existed to enroll him in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) * The first legal urinalysis was given after he was referred to the ADAPCP solely on the basis of unjustifiable testing * His losses involved in...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120002328

    Original file (20120002328.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant states: * In April 2008, the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) granted him relief by deleting from his records any reference to a urinalysis specimen tested on 6 April 1983 * The Board voided his chapter 9 discharge with a general discharge and issued him an honorable discharge * The Board also granted him service credit and pay through the original expiration of his term of service (ETS) date * The reason for the correction was that the scientific test...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002069847C070402

    Original file (2002069847C070402.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    The applicant states, in effect, that he was discharged because of an urinalysis that tested positive for illegal drugs. On 26 July 1983, the applicant was recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure. Chapter 9 contains the authority and outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080001389

    Original file (20080001389.txt) Auto-classification: Approved

    The positive urinalysis of the specimen submitted by the applicant on 6 April 1983 was determined to be chemically and/or legally unsupportable by the Urinalysis Records Review Team and could not rightfully serve as the basis for adverse administrative or disciplinary actions. Accordingly, it would be in the best interest of justice to delete from the applicant's military personnel and medical records any and all references to the positive urinalysis of the specimen he submitted on 6 April...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090002344

    Original file (20090002344.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). He states he was discharged from the service and never understood why his urinalysis would have been positive since he had stopped all drug use. A letter from the Community Counseling Center (CCC), subject, Alcohol and Drug Discharge, dated 14 July 1983, addressed to the applicant's commander stated that the applicant actively participated in activities; however, he had come up positive for THC on...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130007798

    Original file (20130007798.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 12 October 1984, he was notified that his immediate commander was initiating action to discharge him from the Army, in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 9. His commander cited his positive urinalysis tests results, recorded on 13 October 1983 and 27 June 1984, as the basis for declaring him a rehabilitative failure. On 12 October 1984, the applicant’s immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9711137

    Original file (9711137.rtf) Auto-classification: Approved

    On 3 June 1998 the Board denied the applicant’s request for removal of the subject NJP. However, at that time, the Board was unaware that the applicant’s urinalysis fell within the Board’s Urinalysis Records Correction Program. Since the subject NJP and references to the applicant’s drug abuse are to be removed from the applicant’s records, there appears to be no good reason to continue to assign the applicant an RE code of RE-3.