| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | ||
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | ||
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
2. The applicant requests that his rank and pay grade be restored. He states that he was notified his urinalysis test was in error. He provides no supporting evidence.
3. The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 3 February 1981.
4. On 25 May 1983, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for knowingly and willfully using marijuana on or about 7 April 1983. His punishment was a reduction to Private, E-2 (suspended for 6 months), a forfeiture of $150 pay for 2 months, and extra duty for 14 days.
5. On 12 July 1983, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for operating his privately owned vehicle on post while his driving privileges were suspended, failing to go to physical training test formation, and failing to go to his appointment with the battalion commander. His punishment was a reduction to Private, E-2 and extra duty for 25 days.
6. On 2 February 1984, the applicant was honorably released, in the rank of Private, E-2, from active duty upon completing his term of service.
7. 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.
8. Subsequently, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel (DCSPER) 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. In the applicant’s case the review team discovered one positive urinalysis, processed on the specimen submitted by the applicant on 7 April 1983. The team specifically examined the test results and determined that the scientific test procedures and the supporting chain of custody documents used were deficient. Consequently, a conclusion that the applicant’s urine specimen contained illegal drugs would not be legally and/or scientifically supportable.
9. Beginning in July 1984, a program was instituted whereby DCSPER notified all persons whose test results had been reviewed by the review team that they had the right to apply to this Board to request correction of any error or injustice which may have resulted.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. 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.
2. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was not reduced to Private, E-2 because of the 25 May 1983 Article 15 issued as a result of the urinalysis test (which suspended the reduction). He was reduced as a consequence of his 12 July 1983 Article 15. It has been determined that the misconduct for which he received the 12 July 1983 Article 15 in and of itself was serious enough to warrant a reduction.
3. The positive urinalysis results upon which the applicant’s 25 May 1983 Article 15 was based was determined to be neither scientifically or legally supportable for use in disciplinary or administrative actions. Therefore, it would be equitable to now remove that Article 15 from his records.
4. In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That all of the Department of the Army records related to this case be corrected by expunging the Article 15 dated 25 May 1983 from the applicant’s records.
2. That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.
BOARD VOTE:
__FNE__ __MHM__ __DPH__ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
___Fred N. Eichorn___
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2002071850 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/07/16 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | PARTIAL GRANT |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 133.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013699
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 24 April 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060013699 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. This provision of law allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines that it would be in the interest of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082969C070215
The applicant’s military records show that prior to the period of service under review the applicant served honorable in the Regular Army (RA) from 28 December 1981 through 26 March 1982 when he was an Army National Guard (ARNG) member assigned to active duty for training. would be appropriate to: delete from his military personnel and medical records, if available, any and all references to the positive urinalysis of 23 September 1983; void the discharge action based upon that positive...
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 | CY2013 | 20130007798
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 applicants immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance...
ARMY | DRB | CY2005 | 20050007169
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 February 2006 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20050007169 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. In his original application (Docket Number AC9412971, which was administratively closed by letter dated 20 February 1996) due to his records being unavailable), he additionally requested "restitution of pay between E3...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040001589C070208
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 3 May 2005 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20040001589 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. In the applicant’s case, the review team discovered one positive urinalysis processed on a specimen submitted by the applicant on 3 March 1983. The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002066456C070402
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 | 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 | 20050004255C070206
The applicant states, in effect, that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) should investigate whether the urinalysis book used by his unit was lost prior to his discharge, and contends that, if so, his positive urinalysis tests were not valid. On 24 December 1985, the appropriate authority directed the applicant receive a discharge under other than honorable conditions under the provisions of chapter 14 of Army Regulation 635-200 for misconduct - abuse of drugs. He was...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001058680C070421
A DA Form 4466 dated 23 June 1983 indicates that the applicant was changed from Track I to Track II after he came up positive for THC on a urinalysis. The remarks section of the Report of Mental Status Evaluation, DA Form 3822-R, indicates that he was being “discharged for criminal activity.” 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...