| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Jessie B. Strickland | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Shirley L. Powell | Member | |
| Mr. Robert L. Duecaster | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That his discharge was the result of his being on drugs and he does not do drugs anymore. He further states that he did not know the effect his discharge would have on him until years later.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
He enlisted in Dallas, Texas, on 19 May 1983, for a period of 3 years, training as a material control and accounting specialist and assignment to Europe. He completed his basic combat training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and was transferred to Fort Lee, Virginia, to undergo his advanced individual training (AIT). He completed his AIT and was transferred to Germany on 15 September 1983. He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 September 1984.
On 11 December 1984, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for behaving disrespectfully towards a superior commissioned officer. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay (suspended for 30 days) and extra duty.
On 28 January 1985, the applicant received a letter of reprimand (LOR) from his commander for his poor judgment and association with local nationals of dubious character, who were admitted drug users and of which one was a minor.
On 5 February 1985, the applicant was enrolled in the Alcohol Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) as a result of a military police blotter for wrongful possession and use of hashish. His first 101 days in Track II was satisfactory; however, on 17 May 1985, he was involved in an alcohol related incident and on 12 July 1985, he received a positive urinalysis for THC (tetrahydrocannabinol). The clinical director of the ADAPCP declared him a rehabilitation failure on 2 August 1985.
Meanwhile, on 24 July 1985, NJP was imposed against him for disobeying a lawful order from a warrant officer and communicating a threat to injure another soldier. His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3, a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.
On 20 September 1985, 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, for his repeated instances of drug abuse. After consulting with counsel, the applicant elected to submit a statement in his own behalf, whereas he asserted that he was not guilty of using drugs, that the charges against him had been blown out of proportion and that he was a good worker who deserved to receive an honorable discharge.
The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 7 October 1985 and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.
Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 25 October 1985, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure. He had served 2 years, 5 months and 7 days of total active service.
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 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.
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 Board has reviewed the applicant's records and finds that his misconduct and overall record of service 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
__slp ___ __rld ___ __fe ____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003087836 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | YYYYMMDD |
| DATE BOARDED | 2003/10/07 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 1985/10/07 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR635-200/CH9 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | DRUG ABUSE REHAB FAIL |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. 680 | 144.6900/A69.00 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001055838C070420
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. APPLICANT REQUESTS: That...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060004460C070205
The applicant requests that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable and that the narrative reason for separation, separation authority, separation code and reenlistment code be removed from his report of separation (DD Form 214). Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 17 October 1986, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for alcohol abuse – rehabilitation failure. There is no indication in the available records to show that he...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060013822
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant states that he was issued a separation code of JPC which is indicative of a drug and/or alcohol rehabilitation failure and he was never offered any type of rehabilitation, nor was he afforded the opportunity to consult with an attorney to discuss his options. Although the record of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) is not present in the available records, his records show that he was reduced to the pay grade of E-2 on 16 July 1987.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2001 | 2001065807C070421
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. At the time of the applicant's separation an honorable or general discharge was authorized. The Board concludes that as he continued to drink, stopped attending Track II meetings before completion of the program, and continued to be involved in alcohol related incidents, he is clearly shown to be an alcohol rehabilitation failure.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003485
Subsequent to the applicant's acknowledgement, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of ADAPCP rehabilitation failure. The applicant was accordingly discharged on 10 May 1985. Based on his record of indiscipline and subsequent ADAPCP rehabilitation failure, his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2013 | 20130003015
The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued confirms he was discharged on 14 February 1985 under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of "drug abuse rehabilitation failure" with a characterization of service of general under honorable conditions. The evidence of record shows the applicant exhibited an alcohol abuse problem and he was provided with the opportunity to overcome his problem through counseling,...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090005210
The immediate commander cited the specific reasons for this action as the applicant's positive test for a controlled substance on a recent unit urinalysis, poor potential for rehabilitation of alcohol abuse, and continued abuse that rendered him an alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Therefore, the applicant's service does not warrant an honorable discharge.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2004 | 20040002503C070208
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The ADAPCP staff believed that continued treatment would not have been practical and supported declaring the applicant a rehabilitation failure. On 15 November 1982, the applicant was discharged with a GD under the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of alcohol rehabilitation failure.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140001026
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. He attended Pawnee Mental Health Classes on 10 October 1985. c. He provided urinalysis samples that tested positive on 8 August 1985 and 10 December 1985. d. In consultation between ADAPCP staff and the company commander, it was determined that the applicant was a rehabilitative failure based on the criteria of sub-standard duty performance and his continued abuse of alcohol and other drugs. The record shows he was discharged as an...
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.