| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Ms. Wanda L. Waller | Analyst |
| Mr. Arthur A. Omartian | Chairperson | |
| Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast | Member | |
| Mr. Ronald E. Blakely | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: The applicant did not provide an explanation with his application. In support of his application, he submits a letter of support from a Career Counselor at the Arizona Army National Guard Recruiting and Retention Command and a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 31 March 1983.
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's military records show:
While in the Army National Guard, the applicant was ordered to involuntary active duty for a period of 20 months and 19 days. He was discharged from the Army National Guard on 5 June 1977 and entered active duty on 6 June 1977. He was honorably discharged on 23 August 1978. On 24 August 1978, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.
On 2 June 1980, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for disobeying a lawful order. His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3 (suspended for 3 months), a forfeiture of pay, and extra duty.
On 5 February 1981, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for failure to repair. His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.
On 13 April 1981, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for failing to obey a lawful order, using disrespectful language, and disobeying a lawful order. His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3 (suspended for
6 months) and extra duty. On 9 July 1981, the suspension of the reduction to
E-3 was set aside.
On 3 June 1982, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for disobeying a lawful command and failure to repair (three specifications). His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3 (suspended and to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 3 August 1982), a forfeiture of pay, extra duty, and restriction. On 26 July 1982, the suspension of the punishment of reduction to
E-3 was vacated.
On 23 November 1982, the applicant was enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) following the submission of a positive urine specimen for marijuana during a unit sweep.
On 20 January 1983, the applicant submitted a positive urine specimen for marijuana.
On 4 February 1983, in consultation with the rehabilitation team, the applicant's unit commander declared him a rehabilitation failure.
On 10 March 1983, the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure.
On 10 March 1983, after consulting with counsel, the applicant waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived a personal appearance before a board of officers and elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf.
On 11 March 1983, the applicant’s unit commander submitted a recommendation to discharge the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure.
On 16 March 1983, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that the applicant be furnished a general discharge.
Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with a general discharge on 31 March 1983 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure. He had served 6 years, 1 month and 6 days of creditable service.
There is no indication in the applicant’s records that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade with its 15-year statute of limitations.
Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 9 contains the authority and outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse. A member who has been referred to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) for alcohol/drug abuse may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical. At the time of the applicant's separation an honorable or general discharge was authorized.
Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.
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 compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.
3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
4. The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.
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
AAO___ ECP____ REB_____ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2003090073 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20031113 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | GD |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | 19830331 |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | AR 635-200 Chapter 9 |
| DISCHARGE REASON | Drug abuse rehabilitation failure |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 110.0200 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002072382C070403
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. On 6 May 1983, the applicant was recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure. The applicant was discharged on 27 May 1983.
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...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090000404
He requested a copy of his corrected DD Form 214 and found that the reason for discharge shows "drug abuse - rehabilitation failure." On 10 November 1983, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure. On 27 August 1997, the ABCMR corrected the applicant's records by deleting from his military personnel and medical records any and all references to the urinalyses of the specimens he submitted on 4 January 1983...
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 | CY2003 | 2003090926C070212
I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. Evidence of record shows the applicant waived his right to consult with counsel prior to his discharge. The Board determined that the evidence presented and the merits of this case are insufficient to warrant the relief requested, and therefore, it would not be in the interest of justice to excuse the...
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 | CY2010 | 20100026535
The applicant states: * His narrative reason for separation should be changed to "Convenience of the Army" instead of "Alcohol Abuse Rehabilitation Failure" and, as a result, change of his separation code and RE code as appropriate * No supportable urinalysis existed to enroll him in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) * The first legal urinalysis was given after he was referred to the ADAPCP solely on the basis of unjustifiable testing * His losses involved in...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003490
Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 12 October 1983, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, due to alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure. On 12 December 1996, the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge. 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.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100012492
The immediate commander cited the specific reason for this action as the applicant's poor potential for rehabilitation for alcohol or drug abuse and continued abuse rendered him an alcohol or drug abuse rehabilitation failure. On 26 July 1983, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of ADAPCP rehabilitation failure and recommended a General Discharge Certificate. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080001389
The positive urinalysis of the specimen submitted by the applicant on 6 April 1983 was determined to be chemically and/or legally unsupportable by the Urinalysis Records Review Team and could not rightfully serve as the basis for adverse administrative or disciplinary actions. Accordingly, it would be in the best interest of justice to delete from the applicant's military personnel and medical records any and all references to the positive urinalysis of the specimen he submitted on 6 April...