| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Robert J. McGowan | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Mr. Patrick H. McGann, Jr. | Member |
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:
1. The applicant requests reconsideration of his earlier request to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to upgrade his discharge from undesirable (UD) to general under honorable conditions (GD).
2. The applicant states, in effect, that the Board's previous decision was unfair because it did not give proper weight to the fact that his misconduct was the result of a medical condition, alcoholism, for which he did not receive proper treatment by the Army.
3. The applicant relates that he was twice sentenced to the "Europe Rehabilitation Center" as punishment for his alcohol-induced misconduct. He adds that this was an "insufficient . . . ineffective treatment for [his] disease."
4. The applicant feels that he is being punished for having a disease and that, under current standards, makes discharge decisions based on medical judgment and not character assessments. In effect, the applicant feels that he would not receive a UD under current standards.
5. The applicant provides: a letter written by his Representative in Congress; a letter, with attachments, written by the chief executive officer (CEO) of a center for substance abuse treatment; a 21 October 2002 letter from a psychologist; an 18 October 2002 letter from a chemical dependency treatment program; a 16 October 2002 letter from a non-profit mental health, substance abuse, and social services agency; and a 24 October 2002 letter from an alcohol and drug abuse counselor.
CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:
1. Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the ABCMR in Docket Number AR2002066543, on 19 September 2002.
2. The applicant was involved in various forms of misconduct during his brief military career. While it appears that alcohol consumption played a role in his misconduct, a medical evaluation on 29 February 1956 did not find him to be an alcoholic, but merely stated that he had a "tendency toward alcoholism."
3. The applicant indicated that he was twice "sentenced to the Europe Rehabilitation Center." During the period of the applicant's service, the Army operated two facilities in Germany. The US Army Europe (USAREUR) Military Stockade was located in Mannheim and was the confinement facility for all of Europe. The USAREUR Rehabilitation Center was located in Crailsheim and was designed to rehabilitate Soldiers and return them to duty. Although detailed information on the types of programs offered at Crailsheim is no longer available, the facility was geared more toward retraining and reorienting, than toward confinement. The applicant would have been offered whatever counseling and character guidance programs were available at the time.
4. Army Regulation (AR) 600-85, Army Substance Abuse Program, prescribes policies and procedures to implement, administer, and evaluate the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP). Objectives of the ASAP include: providing services which are adequate and responsive to the needs of the Army and emphasize alcohol and other drug abuse deterrence, prevention, education, and treatment; implementing alcohol and other drug risk reduction and prevention strategies that respond to potential problems before they jeopardize readiness, productivity, and careers; and restoring to duty those substance-impaired soldiers who have the potential for continued military service. However, the regulation still provides for the separation of soldiers who, after consultation between the commander and the drug and alcohol rehabilitation team, are determined to be rehabilitation failures. Further, the regulation does not preclude initiation of separation action for unfitness or misconduct if appropriate.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's original review by the Board clearly considered, and rejected, the issue of his alcohol consumption as a mitigating factor in his case. The Board pointed out that the applicant had twice been sent to the USAREUR Rehabilitation Center without any noticeable improvement in his behavior. The Board also pointed out that intoxication is not a defense for misconduct.
2. The applicant's argument that transfer to the USAREUR Rehabilitation Center was an act of punishment is not persuasive. As previously stated, confinement in USAREUR was accomplished at the Mannheim Military Stockade; rehabilitation and return to duty was accomplished at the Rehabilitation Center at Crailsheim. Although the specific types of rehabilitative programs available at Crailsheim cannot be stated with certainty, it can be stated that the facility's mission was not confinement, but rehabilitation. The applicant has provided no evidence to the contrary.
3. While it is true that the ASAP emphasizes alcohol and drug abuse deterrence, prevention, education, and treatment, it is also true that the Army's overriding goal is improved readiness and, to that end, Soldiers who abuse alcohol or drugs, or who commit misconduct while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, are still subject to discharge. If discharged for misconduct, an under other than honorable conditions (UOTHC) discharge is still considered appropriate.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT RELIEF
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
__fne___ __mhm___ __phm___ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003085572 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20031202 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | UD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19560417 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 615-368 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | A50.00 |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0000 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080013152
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). He further states that following the applicant's final deployment to Iraq, he began to have problems with alcohol and was command-referred to the Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention Program (ASAP) and enrolled for treatment on 20 October 2004. A SPD code of JPD applies to persons who are separated by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure under the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130014085
On 12 August 2009, his unit commander notified him of the initiation of separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12c, for misconduct - commission of a serious offense. e. Paragraph 1412c(2) abuse of illegal drugs is serious misconduct. While the specific date of his first drug offense is not of record, his medical records show he tested positive at least twice for illegal drug use.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004794
There is no evidence in the applicant's record showing he was prohibited from participating in substance abuse rehabilitation programs. Army Regulation 600-85 (The Army Substance Abuse Program) states legal and administrative actions against a Soldier on deployment orders with a confirmed positive drug test may be suspended at the discretion of the separation authority until the Soldiers unit redeploys from the theater of combat operations. There is no evidence in the applicant's record,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002322
He was sent home addicted and no effort was made to address his addiction. The AG stated the command takes seriously its responsibility in assisting their Soldiers from using and or abusing drugs and alcohol. The applicant was not discharged for drug abuse.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110017803
The chain of command had determined that incident, the applicant's conduct as a field grade officer, along with his previous referrals to ASAP to be the basis for the applicant's determination as a rehabilitation failure. He was an alcoholic and had been for several years. On 14 April 2006, the applicant's battalion commander recommended the GOMOR be permanently filed in the applicant's OMPF.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090018924
The applicant requests, in effect, correction of appropriate military records to show a reentry eligibility (RE) code which would allow enlistment. The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 2 September 1999. On 21 January 2005, the applicant was discharged with an honorable characterization of service under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200, alcohol rehabilitation failure after completing 1 year, 10 months, and 11 days of active...
ARMY | DRB | CY2009 | AR20090012297
Applicant Name: ????? The evidence of record establishes the fact that the applicant was placed in an approved Army Drug Abuse Prevention and Control contract facility that was a new struggling recovery and rehabilitation center with poorly supervised night staff. Board Action Directed President, Army Discharge Review Board Issue a new DD Form 214 Change Characterization to: Change Reason to: NA Other: NA RE Code: Grade Restoration: No Yes Grade: NA Legend: AWOL Absent Without Leave GCM...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080019931
On 15 August 2000, the applicant acknowledged that he had been advised by consulting counsel for the contemplated action to accomplish his separation for alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 9-2a, and its effect, of the rights available to him, and the effect of any action taken by him in waiving his rights. Chapter 4 (Rehabilitation) of Army Regulation 600-85 (Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) [later...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100022523
Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). The applicant states in accordance with Army Regulation 600-85 (Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP)), if a Soldier volunteers for treatment to seek help (for drug or alcohol abuse), he or she should not receive an Article 15 or be reduced in rank nor should he or she be removed from active duty and/or the treatment program. The limited use policy does not apply to the following evidence: * A...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100027875
The applicant states his discharge processing contained many discrepancies: * he was an outstanding Soldier in initial training and during his military service * the consumption of alcohol was common practice among noncommissioned officers in his unit * his discharge was based on an erroneous enrollment in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) * no proper medical assessment to enroll him was conducted * his discharge was under duress because he was harassed by...