| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Ms. Margaret K. Patterson | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Jennifer L. Prater | Member | |
| Ms. Mae L. Bullock | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he has met the time qualifications to be eligible for a discharge upgrade.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted with a moral waiver in Guam on 28 November 1979, for a period of 4 years and training as an avionics special equipment repairman. At the time of his enlistment, he indicated that he had used marijuana once. He successfully completed is training and was transferred to Hawaii on 29 October 1980. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 5 November 1981.
On 9 September 1982, he was enrolled in the Alcohol Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) due to testing positive for marijuana during a urinalysis. He was released from the ADAPCP on 12 April 1983 as a rehabilitative success by the commander.
However, he again tested positive for marijuana during a urinalysis conducted in a unit sweep on 17 June 1983 and was deemed a rehabilitative failure by a rehabilitation team meeting convened on 12 July 1983.
On 11 August 1983, 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, chapter 9, due to his drug abuse rehabilitative failure.
After consulting with counsel, the applicant elected to submit a statement in his own behalf whereas he asserted that he realized that he had been given a chance once before by his chain of command and must now accept the consequences for his actions. However, realizing that he may not be able to remain in the Army, he requested that he be issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate.
The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 25 August 1983 and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate. Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 15 September 1983, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, due to drug abuse rehabilitation failure. He had served 3 years, 9 months and 18 days of total active service.
There is no evidence in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 9 of that regulation contains the authority and outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol and/or drug abuse. A member may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, or successfully complete a rehabilitation program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical. Characterization of service will be determined solely by the soldier’s military record that includes the soldier’s behavior and performance during the current enlistment. An honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty. A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions. It is issued to soldiers whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge. There are no automatic provisions, nor have there ever been, to automatically upgrade a discharge made under these provisions.
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 or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
2. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no evidence of any violations of the applicant’s rights. Accordingly, he was given the proper narrative reason for his separation and he has provided no evidence to justify an upgrade of his discharge.
3. The applicant had multiple incidents of misconduct involving drug abuse and the Board finds that such misconduct does not constitute fully honorable service.
4. 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
____mb _ __mkp___ __jlp____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002078576 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/01/14 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1983/09/15 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/CH9 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | DRUG REHAB FAILURE |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 680 | 144.6900/A69.00/DRUG REHAB FAIL |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002068372C070402
On 19 April 1979, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for possession of marijuana. Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 8 June 1983, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure. There is no indication in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.
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 | CY2011 | 20110013778
There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations. The evidence of record shows he tested positive for marijuana use in January 1983 and as a result, he was referred for enrollment in the ADAPCP by his chain of command as an effort to help him. _______ _ X_______ ___ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080005611
The applicant served in the Regular Army from 23 September 1980 through 13 January 1984, a period of 3 years, 3 months, and 21 days. While in Germany, the applicant was command referred to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) because of a positive urinalysis for marijuana. Also on the same date, the commander requested the applicant be discharged.
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 | CY2013 | 20130010423
The applicant states he was discharged from the Army after a positive urinalysis test. The applicant's DD Form 214 confirms he was discharged with a characterization of service of under honorable conditions by reason of being a drug abuse rehabilitation failure. Based on his record of ADAPCP failure and positive drug test, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001062295C070421
The applicant submits copies of documents related to his reductions in grade which include his company commander’s 12 January 2000 recommendation for separation, part of the proceedings of his 21 November 2000 Administrative Separation Board, a summary of his rehabilitation appointments recorded on two appointment information sheets, two court-martial charge sheets for cocaine use, a 26 June 2000 summary of rehabilitation services, and a 30 November 2000 letter from a private substance abuse...
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 | CY2009 | 20090011025
The applicant requests upgrade of his general under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. On 14 June 1983, the applicant was notified by his company commander that he was being processed for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) chapter 9, by reason of alcohol or other drug abuse - rehabilitation failure. The applicant stated that he should not receive a general, under honorable conditions discharge.
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...