| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Nancy L. Amos | Analyst |
| Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr. | Chairperson | ||
| Ms. Barbara J. Ellis | Member | ||
| Ms. Karen A. Heinz | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his general discharge be upgraded.
APPLICANT STATES: That he feels he should not have been separated from the Army but if he had to go he did not deserve a general discharge. His commander did not like him and tried everything until he got him on the rehabilitation failure and he had never gone through any rehabilitation. His record should have spoken for itself. He provides no supporting evidence.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in the Regular Army on 28 April 1977.
The applicant's Personnel Qualification Record, DA Form 2-1, item 18 shows that he was promoted to Sergeant, E-5 on 10 December 1978.
A Telephone or Verbal Conversation Record, DA Form 751, dated 9 December 1982 notes that the applicant's Official Military Personnel File (OMPF) revealed he received a field grade Article 15 on 19 March 1979 for operating a vehicle while drunk. He appealed the punishment of reduction to pay grade E-4 and the appeal was denied. His DA Form 2-1, item 18 shows he was reduced to Specialist Four, E-4 on 13 April 1979. The same DA Form 751 notes his OMPF revealed he received an Article 15 on 22 May 1979 for failure to repair and disobeying a lawful order. He was found in a gasthaus, clothed in fatigues, drinking during duty hours. He did not stop drinking or vacate the premises when ordered to do so. He received a suspended reduction to pay grade E-3.
On 9 December 1981, the applicant received a letter of reprimand for being present in the company billets in an inebriated state. The applicant elected not to make a statement. The letter was filed in Military Personnel Records Jacket, DA Form 201.
On 4 May 1982, the applicant's commander was notified that the applicant had a second recorded offense of a dishonored check.
On 6 July 1982, the applicant was stopped by military police for driving under the influence. On 7 July 1982, he was entered in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP).
On 8 July 1982, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for disobeying a lawful command to report to work and stay there in case he was needed and for operating a passenger car while drunk and in a reckless manner. His punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-5 and a forfeiture of $200.00 pay for 2 months.
On 6 December 1982, the applicant was stopped by local police for erratic driving. He submitted to an intoxilyzer test, results .25%. He appeared in court, pleaded not guilty, and was released on bond with a 22 December 1982 court date.
A Rehabilitation Failure Statement dated 6 December 1982 and signed by the Social Service Assistant and the Deputy Alcohol and Drug Coordinator noted that, in consultation with the applicant's commanding officer, it was determined that the applicant was a rehabilitative failure. The determination was based on the criteria of substandard duty performance and continued abuse of alcohol. It noted that a change to Army Regulation 635-200 clarified that the statement "Active Phase of Rehabilitation" meant the commander could, with the rehabilitation team, declare a member a rehabilitation failure at any time deemed necessary.
On 7 December 1982, a mental status evaluation found the applicant to be mentally responsible, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right, and to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in board proceedings. He completed a separation physical examination on this date and was found to be qualified for separation.
On 13 December 1982, the applicant's commander initiated separation action on the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9 for alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure.
On 13 December 1982, the applicant acknowledged notification of the action. He submitted a statement in his own behalf. He stated that he was improperly declared a rehabilitation failure. He had attended only four meetings since July 1982, being removed from the program on 2 September 1982 in order to go to Germany for Reforger '82. He was arrested on 6 December 1982 for driving while intoxicated but he had not yet been convicted of the offense. It was his opinion he was a good noncommissioned officer.
On 16 December 1982, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the applicant given a general discharge.
On 11 January 1983, the applicant was discharged with a general discharge, in pay grade E-5, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9 for alcohol abuse - rehabilitation failure. He had completed 8 years, 6 months, and 4 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 9 provides for the discharge of members based on alcohol or other drug abuse such as the illegal, wrongful or improper use of any controlled substance, alcohol or other drug when the soldier in enrolled in ADAPCP and the commander, in consultation with the rehabilitation team, determines that further rehabilitation efforts are not practical, rendering the soldier a rehabilitative failure.
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. 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. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
2. The applicant’s separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights. The record of evidence shows he had a long history, as a noncommissioned officer, of alcohol-related incidents. The characterization of his service as general was and still is appropriate.
3. 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
__RVO__ __BJE__ __KAH__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002076917 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 2002/10/24 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1983/01/11 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200, ch 9 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A69.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001061907C070421
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 18 January 1985 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure. At the time of the applicant’s separation an honorable or general discharge was authorized. The Board noted the applicant’s post service support to veterans programs, but this post service is not a basis for upgrading his discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2012 | 20120022856
The applicant states his discharge should be upgraded for the following reasons: a. he was not afforded the opportunity to successfully complete a course for rehabilitation; b. he was never actually found to have had a positive urinalysis; c. he was never found to have bought/sold or otherwise possessed any illegal drugs; d. he was pressured by his company commander and first sergeant to accept his discharge or become part of an ongoing investigation involving the apparent suicide of their...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012164
The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-1, on 17 April 1979. On 31 July 1986, the applicant's company commander advised the applicant that he was initiating his separation pursuant to the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) for his continued abuse of alcohol and rehabilitation failure. He was discharged in pay grade E-3 on 3 September 1986, under the provisions of Army Regulation...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080011398
At the time of the applicants separation an honorable or general discharge was authorized. The evidence of record shows that the applicant was provided with multiple opportunities to overcome his drug and alcohol problems, including reclassification, counseling, rehabilitative transfer, and enrollment in the ADAPCP. Based on his record of indiscipline which included two instances of Article 15, a bar to reenlistment, PRP disqualification, and ADAPCP failure, the applicant's service...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003475
On 23 January 1984, the applicant's company commander advised the applicant that he was initiating action for his discharge pursuant to the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) for his continued drug and alcohol abuse and lack of response to rehabilitation services. On 23 January 1984, the applicant's company commander recommended the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9 with a general...
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 | CY2014 | 20140017198
On 26 January 1983, the applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel) for rehabilitative failure of the ADAPCP due to drug abuse. The commander stated that it was determined further rehabilitative efforts were not practical and rendered the applicant a rehabilitative failure. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002082576C070215
The commanding officer stated that the applicant indicated a desire to be separated from the Army at the earliest opportunity and that he was in the process of being discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, based on alcohol or other drug abuse. Although the applicant's commander directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate, his recommendation for discharge was motivated by the applicant’s conduct related to alcohol or drug abuse. However, he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003011
On 12 November 1981, the applicant was enrolled in Track II of the Army Drug and Alcohol Prevention Control Program (ADAPCP) for alcohol abuse rehabilitation at the Fort Dix, New Jersey counseling center. He stated the applicant was considered an ADAPCP rehabilitation failure. However, his failure to take advantage of the rehabilitation program and his continued use of alcohol in the program, including a second DUI, clearly diminished the quality of his service during the period of...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090009541
The applicant was honorably discharged on 6 October 1989 in the rank/grade of PFC/E-3, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure. Contrary to the applicants contention that he was unjustly discharged under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, the evidence shows he was twice punished under Article 15, UCMJ for alcohol-related incidents, twice placed in the ADAPCP, and acknowledged the reason for his separation. The...