| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. Irene N. Wheelwright | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Walter T. Morrison | Member | |
| Mr. Charles Gainor | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that the narrative reason for his separation be deleted from his report of separation (DD Form 214).
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that he took to misusing drugs because of all of the personal and family tragedies in his life before and after his enlistment and now desires to have his DD Form 214 corrected to remove the stigma of a former drug user. He continues by stating that his drug use had increased before he entered the Army and it was his father who suggested that he could get the help he needed in the Army. Since his discharge he has entered into and completed a rehabilitation program that has helped him remain drug and alcohol free. In support of his application he submits letters of support from his parents and two pastors.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the pay grade of E-4 on 13 August 1991, for a period of 3 years, training as a cargo handler and enrollment in the Army College Fund. At the time of his enlistment he indicated that he had never used illegal drugs. He successfully completed his training and was transferred to Fort Story, Virginia, for duty as a cargo handler.
In January 1992, he admitted himself to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) and came up positive during two urinalysis while in the program. He came up positive on a unit urinalysis in June 1992 and was terminated from the ADAPCP as a rehabilitation failure in July 1992.
On 19 August 1992, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for the wrongful use of cocaine. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-1, a forfeiture of pay, extra duty and restriction.
On 29 September 1992, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct due to his abuse of illegal drugs. After consulting with counsel the applicant acknowledged that he understood his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.
The commander submitted the recommendation on 13 October 1992. The appropriate authority approved the recommendation on 30 October 1992 and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.
Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 9 November 1992, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct due to abuse of illegal drugs. He had served 1 year, 2 months and 27 days of total active service.
He applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge and removal of all derogatory information/comments from his DD Form 214 on 25 March 2002. He contended that the Army was indirectly involved in his relapse because he was deceived by his recruiter and was not afforded the opportunity to change to an aviation related specialty or apply for Officer Candidate School. The ADRB reviewed the facts and circumstances of the case and determined that because limited use evidence (ADAPCP self-referral) was used in the separation proceedings, the regulation required the issuance of an honorable discharge. The ADRB also noted that the regulation in effect today, only required the narrative reason of “Misconduct” with no mention of the use of illegal drugs. Accordingly, the ADRB voted to upgrade his discharge to honorable and to remove the portion of the narrative reason for separation as pertained to “Abuse of Illegal drugs.” The ADRB approved the changes on 19 June 2002.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 14 of the regulation deals with separation for various types of misconduct, which includes drug abuse, and provides that individuals identified as drug abusers may be separated prior to their normal expiration of term of service. Individuals in pay grades E-5 and above must be processed for separation upon discovery of a drug offense. Those in pay grades below E-5 may also be processed after a first time drug offense and must be processed for separation after a second offense. In the event that limited use evidence is used to effect separation, no less than an honorable discharge will be given.
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. Notwithstanding the actions of the ADRB, the Board finds that the applicant was properly separated for misconduct under the provisions of the regulation in effect at the time and the Board finds no basis to direct any other changes to his DD Form 214.
2. The Board has noted the applicant’s contentions and applauds his efforts at rehabilitation. However, the applicant was not truthful when he came into the Army in regards to his drug use activities and did not succeed in the rehabilitation program while in the Army. Accordingly, his DD Form 214, as changed by the ADRB, properly indicates the narrative reason and authority for his separation from the service.
3. The Board has noted the supporting letters submitted by the applicant with his application and finds that they are not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief when compared to the seriousness of his offenses and his overall undistinguished record of service.
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 this 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
__wtm___ __inw___ ___cg___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002076069 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/10/03 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 191 | 110.0200/RSN/AUTH |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
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 | 2002069974C070402
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. Army Regulation 635-5-1...
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 | CY2006 | 20060001293C070205
The evidence shows that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse - rehabilitation failure. The separation code of "JKK" specified the narrative reason for discharge as "misconduct, such as abuse of illegal drugs" and the authority for discharge under this SPD was "Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14-12c(2). The additional separation code of "JPC" specified the narrative reason for discharge as "drug abuse – rehabilitation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070012869
This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. This form shows that the applicant had completed 1 year, 6 months, and 29 days of creditable military service. There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for upgrade of his discharge within its...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001894C070206
This separation code, the applicant states can only be given a RE Code of "3" according to regulation. According to the applicant, he did just that. The regulation shows that the separation program designator (SPD) "JKK", as shown on the applicant’s DD Form 214, is appropriate for discharge when the narrative reason for discharge is "misconduct, commission of a serious offense, abuse of illegal drugs" and that the authority for discharge under this SPD is "Army Regulation 635- 200, chapter...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2005 | 20050001894C070206
This separation code, the applicant states can only be given a RE Code of "3" according to regulation. According to the applicant, he did just that. The regulation shows that the separation program designator (SPD) "JKK", as shown on the applicants DD Form 214, is appropriate for discharge when the narrative reason for discharge is "misconduct, commission of a serious offense, abuse of illegal drugs" and that the authority for discharge under this SPD is "Army Regulation 635-200, chapter...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002075003C070403
On 14 December 1987, the commander also notified the applicant that she was initiating a recommendation to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, paragraph 12c, for misconduct. On 4 February 1988, the applicant was discharged under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure. Army Regulation 635-200 serves as the authority for enlisted separations.
ARMY | DRB | CY2014 | AR20140002679
On 10 June 2002, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, for drug rehabilitation failure. Army policy states that an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge is authorized depending on the applicants overall record of service. No Counsel: None Witnesses/Observers: No Board Vote: Character Change: 5 No Change: 0 Reason Change: 5 No Change: 0 (Board member names available upon request) Board...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150003030
The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued confirms he was discharged on 10 April 1995 under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of "alcohol rehabilitation failure" with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. The applicant provides multiple certificates of completion showing completion of various substance abuse treatment programs between 2003 and 2008. The ADRB reviewed his discharge and...