RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:          30 August 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20040008314


      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.

|     |Mr. Carl W. S. Chun               |     |Director             |
|     |Mr. Richard P. Nelson             |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Paul M. Smith                 |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Yolanda Maldonado             |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Leonard G. Hassell            |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests upgrade of his General Discharge (under
honorable conditions) to fully honorable.

2.  The applicant states that in 1982, he underwent an initial drug screen
from a field test that was positive.  The sample was lost enroute to the
laboratory at the Naval facility in San Diego, California.  He learned this
in a letter he received in 1986 in which he was offered the opportunity to
upgrade his discharge status due to the error (this letter was not attached
with the applicant’s request for upgrade).  Subsequently, he submitted a
“formal request” for upgrade but his discharge status was not changed.

3.  Since leaving the Army, he has been gainfully employed, has been
promoted to a supervisory position, and has earned both state and national
board certifications as a pharmacy technician.  He has become an
experienced professional in both hospital and retail pharmacy environments
and is grateful for the training and experience he received while he was on
active duty.

4.  The applicant provides copies of several performance ratings and two
commendations he has received since 1998, as well as copies of his board
certifications.  All of the performance ratings indicate average to above
average performance, to include merit pay increases.  In addition, he
provides a copy of an Award of Excellence he received in November 2002 from
the Lexington Medical Center in Columbia, South Carolina.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant is requesting correction of an alleged error that
occurred on 27 January 1983.  The application submitted in this case is
dated 4 October 2004.

2.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for
correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery
of the alleged error or injustice.  This provision of law allows the Army
Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse failure to file
within the 3-year statute of limitation if the ABCMR determines that it
would be in the interest of justice to do so.  In this case, the ABCMR will
conduct a review of the merits of the case to determine if it would be in
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.



3.  The applicant’s military personnel records show that he enlisted in the
Regular Army on 6 June 1978 and trained in Military Occupational Specialty
54E10 (Chemical Operations Specialist).  He later reenlisted and trained in
Military Occupational Specialties 91B10 (Medical Specialist) and 91Q10
(Pharmacy Specialist).  The applicant served at various locations in the
United States and Germany.  He was discharged from the Army in pay grade E-
4 on 27 January 1983 under the provisions of Chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-
200 (Drug Abuse Rehabilitative Failure).  His DD Form 214 (Certificate of
Release or Discharge From Active Duty) shows he received the following
awards: the Good Conduct Medal; the Army Service Ribbon; the Overseas
Service Medal; and, the Marksman Marksmanship Badge with Rifle Bar.

4.  The applicant’s records show that he had no lost time, no record of
punishment under Article 15, and no record of court-martial.  He was
recommended for promotion to pay grade E-5 on 17 June 1982.

5.  In August of 1982, the applicant tested positive for traces of morphine
and codeine in a random drug test.  The applicant claimed, at the time,
that he had been given a prescription for the medication.  He was removed
from the pharmacy program, pending the results of an investigation.  Three
days later, evidence was discovered that a doctor had in fact, prescribed
medication that would have tested positive for morphine and codeine, thus
establishing reasonable doubt as to his guilt.  He was then re-tested and
this time the applicant’s test showed traces of THC, the active ingredient
in marijuana.

6.  On 24 August 1982, the applicant was medically referred to the Army
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP).  He
enrolled in and completed Track I of the program during the period 31
August to 6 October 1982.

7.  On 5 November 1982, the applicant was in a room that was searched by
the military police.  The military police determined that there was
insufficient evidence to bring charges against the applicant however, a
urine sample was obtained and a 10 November 1982 laboratory test showed
that the applicant tested positive for traces of THC.  He received an
administrative letter of reprimand as a result of this incident.

8.  The applicant was re-enrolled in the ADAPCP on 29 November 1982.  The
ADAPCP counselor stated in a memorandum to the applicant’s commander that
he felt the applicant “had a relapse, which is very common in recovery.”
The counselor recommended that the applicant be retained in the service and



continue in the ADAPCP (Track II) until 5 January 1983.  He also stated
that the applicant’s motivation to overcome his drug abuse problem was
“good” and that the applicant was “progressing.”

9.  On 14 December 1982, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant
that she was initiating action to discharge him from the Army for his
failure in the ADAPCP.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the
notification on the same day, indicated that he desired the services of
legal counsel, and submitted a statement in his own behalf.

10.  In the statement the applicant acknowledged that he had a drug problem
and that he realized the seriousness of the problem.  He further stated
that he desired to remain in the Army and in the ADAPCP and felt that he
had enough discipline to overcome the problem and rehabilitate himself.  He
also indicated that he had served over 4 1/2 years in the Army with no
prior disciplinary problems of any kind and that he desired to stay on
active duty and serve his country with dignity and pride.

11.  In a statement dated 15 January 1983, the applicant’s commander
contended that the applicant showed extremely poor judgment and a lack of
motivation, refuted the ADAPCP counselor’s remarks, and recommended that
the applicant be eliminated from the Army.

12.  On 21 January 1983, the separation authority waived further counseling
and rehabilitation requirements, approved the recommendation that the
applicant be discharged under the provisions of Chapter 9, Army Regulation
635-200, and directed that the applicant be issued a General Discharge
Certificate.

13.  Accordingly, on 27 January 1983, the applicant was discharged from the
Army under honorable conditions and furnished a General Discharge
Certificate. He had served 4 years, 7 months, and 21 days of active service
and had no lost time.

14.  There is no indication in the available records to show that the
applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year
statute of limitations.

15.  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 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.
The regulation provides that the commander, in consultation with the
rehabilitation team, makes the determination as to whether further
rehabilitation efforts are practical.  At the time of the applicant’s
separation an honorable or general discharge was authorized.  However, an
honorable discharge was required if restricted use information was used.

16.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that a general
discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  When
authorized, it is issued to a Soldier whose military record is satisfactory
but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  A
characterization of under honorable conditions may be issued only when the
reason for the Soldier’s separation specifically allows such
characterization.

17.  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, 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 AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  Evidence of record shows that the applicant tested positive for use of
marijuana during a unit urinalysis test.

2.  The applicant was duly notified of the commander’s intent to initiate
separation action and was aware of the characterization of service he could
receive.  He consulted with counsel and exercised his right to submit a
statement in his own behalf.  In his statement, the applicant admitted to
his problem, the seriousness of it, and requested that he be allowed to
remain on active duty and complete the ADAPCP.

3.  Evidence of record shows that the applicant cooperated fully in the
ADAPCP. His counselor indicated that that applicant had suffered a relapse
and that such



relapses are common among personnel participating in the ADAPCP.  Further,
the counselor indicated that the applicant’s chances for recovery were good
and recommended his retention in the Army.

4.  The applicant’s commander initiated separation action well before
expiration of the period of time the ADAPCP counselor recommended; thus,
the applicant did not have the opportunity to complete Track II of the
ADAPCP.  To the contrary, the commander refuted the ADAPCP counselor’s
recommendation.

5.  Examination of the applicant’s entire record of service attests to over
4 years of faithful and honorable service prior to the period during which
he tested positive for traces of THC.  He was awarded the Good Conduct
Medal and was recommended for promotion to pay grade E-5.  He has virtually
no record of indiscipline or any other behavior that would have been
considered to be less than acceptable conduct or performance of duty
expected of Army personnel.

6.  Evidence submitted by the applicant indicates a pattern of numerous
instances of exemplary post-service conduct.

7.  Based on the foregoing, it would appear that the characterization of
the applicant’s service was too harsh and that an injustice has occurred.
Accordingly, it would be in the interest of justice to correct the
injustice at this time by correcting the applicant’s general discharge to a
fully honorable discharge.

8.  Changing the reason and authority for the applicant’s discharge has
also been considered.  In this regard, while the applicant’s service
record, in conjunction with his documented post-service conduct, warrants
upgrading his discharge to fully honorable, there was no error or injustice
in his separation due to his failure in the ADAPCP.  As such, there is no
basis for changing the reason and authority for his discharge.

BOARD VOTE:

___ym __  ____lgh__  ____pms  GRANT RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant
a recommendation for relief and to excuse failure to timely file.  As a
result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the
individual concerned be corrected by showing that he was honorably
discharged from the Army on 27 January 1983 with no change in reason and
authority.




            _________Paul M. Smith_____
                    CHAIRPERSON


                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20040008314                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050830                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)    |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |YYYYMMDD                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR . . . . .                            |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |GRANT                                   |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.       |                                        |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]