| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member | |
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member |
2. The applicant requests that his narrative reason for separation be changed.
3. The applicant states, in effect, that he never was offered drug rehabilitation.
4. The applicant’s military records show that he enlisted in the Regular Army on 20 July 1981 for a period of 3 years. He successfully completed basic and advanced individual training and was transferred to Germany for duty as a heavy vehicle driver.
5. On 13 October 1982, the applicant participated in the Army’s drug testing program. The specimen he submitted was tested by urinalysis and was found to contain evidence of illegal drugs.
6. On 13 December 1982, the applicant was referred for treatment in the local Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP). He entered Track II of the program, which required personal and group counseling. At the time of his enrollment 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. In January 1983 and on 5 April 1983, he submitted urine specimens that also tested positive for marijuana. On 17 May 1983, he was declared a rehabilitation failure based solely on those two positive urinalyses.
7. On 3 March 1983, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for drunk driving. His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3, extra duty and restriction.
8. 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 unit commander based his recommendation for separation on the applicant’s record of illegal drug offenses.
9. On 17 May 1983, the separation authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate. The applicant was discharged on 27 May 1983.
10. 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 adverse administrative actions.
11. 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.
12. The review team specifically examined the applicant's test results 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.
13. 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 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 13 October 1982, in January 1983 and on 5 April 1983 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 13 October 1982, in January 1983 and on 5 April 1983.
3. The applicant was properly referred to the ADAPCP for treatment and rehabilitation. He was declared a rehabilitation failure solely on the basis of unsupportable urinalyses. Accordingly, that declaration, and the discharge that was based upon it, were improper and should be voided.
4. Since the applicant’s enlistment would not have expired until 19 July 1984, and since there is good reason to conclude that, but for the unsupportable urinalyses, 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 him full active duty credit through his scheduled expiration term of service (ETS) and to issue him an Honorable Discharge Certificate, effective the date of his scheduled ETS.
5. 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 discharge under honorable conditions which was issued to the individual concerned on 27 May 1983, and by showing that he continued to serve on active duty until 19 July 1984, when he was separated from the service with an Honorable Discharge Certificate, by reason of ETS, 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; and
c. by deleting from his military personnel and medical records any and all references to the positive urinalyses of the specimens he submitted on 13 October 1982, in January 1983 and on 5 April 1983.
BOARD VOTE:
RVO___ KAH_____ BJE_____ GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
________ ________ ________ DENY APPLICATION
_Raymond V. O’Connor__
CHAIRPERSON
| CASE ID | AR2002072382 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20021024 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19830527 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, Chapter 9 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Drug Abuse Rehabilitation Failure |
| BOARD DECISION | GRANT PLUS |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0200 |
| 2. | 126.0400 |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001060476C070421
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. Thereafter, he was recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, as a drug abuse rehabilitation failure. 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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1996 | 9611973C070209
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
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 | CY2002 | 2002069847C070402
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 | CY2009 | 20090002344
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 | CY2008 | 20080001389
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 | 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 | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026535
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
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 | 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...