RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        FEBRUARY 15, 2005
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2004106506


      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. Luis Almodova                 |     |Analyst              |


      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Ms. Jennifer L. Prater            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Mr. Thomas A. Pagan               |     |Member               |
|     |Mr. Kenneth W. Lapin              |     |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, in effect, through counsel, reconsideration of
his request to change the narrative reason for his separation and his
reentry (RE) code.

2.  The applicant has elected to remain silent to allow counsel to
represent him in presenting the case for reconsideration.

3.  The applicant provides no documentary evidence, except that submitted
in his behalf by counsel, in support of his request for reconsideration.

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

1.  Counsel requests, in effect, that the request for reconsideration for a
change to the narrative reason for the separation of his client and the RE
code applied to his client's DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or
Discharge from Active Duty, be reviewed by the Army Board for the
Correction of Military Records (ABCMR), base on newly discovered evidence.

2.  Counsel states, in effect, that he submitted proof that his client was
never an actual alcohol rehabilitation failure.  The Board had earlier said
it needed proof of this; however, it was dismissed as not having met the
reconsideration criteria when the Board received it.  This, the applicant's
former commander's declaration, he asserts, is compelling new evidence.

3.  Counsel provides, a copy of an undated declaration from his client's
former commander, which was annotated as having been received in his office
on 29 April 2003.  Counsel also provides a memorandum to the Board, dated
18 March 2004, in which he requests reconsideration of his client's case
based on this new evidence.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records, which were
summarized, in previous considerations of the applicant's case by the Army
Board for the Correction of Military Records in Docket Number AR1999026696,
on 11 February 2000; in Docket Number AR2002066461, on 28 March 2002; and
in Docket Number AR2003093965, on 16 March 2004.
2.  The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve in the Delayed /
Enlistment Program for 8 years on 28 November 1986.  On 28 July 1987, the
applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years and 14 weeks, in the
rank and pay grade, Private First Class, E-3.  He entered active duty on
the same date.

3.  The applicant remained in the Army through an extension of his
enlistment contract, and through a reenlistment, and an extension of his
reenlistment contract until 14 March 1996.

4.  On 1 November 1995, his commander referred the applicant to the Army's
Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP).

5.  The commander referred the applicant to the ADAPCP because she became
aware that he and others were using their government-issued credit cards
for personal use, to include the purchase of alcohol.  She referred the
applicant to alcohol rehabilitation, not because there was an alcohol-
related incident requiring disciplinary action, but rather because it
appeared to her that his purchase of alcohol suggested that he had an
alcohol problem that was causing financial irresponsibility.  The ADAPCP
was a tool to help the Soldier to preempt the need for any disciplinary
action.

6.  In an Integrated Summary prepared by a drug abuse counselor, prepared
on 1 November 1995, she included the statement; "Patient states that he has
never previously received treatment for his alcohol problem."  She states
that the patient reported that he took his first drink at 15 and began
drinking heavily by age 25.  The drug abuse counselor stated that the
patient's last drink was on 25 October 1995 and he said that the maximum
amount he ever drank was "three cases."  The patient also reported to the
drug abuse counselor that he had the following problems:  drinking binges,
weight gain, high blood pressure, back pain and allergies.

7.  A DA Form 4465-R, Patient Intake/Screening Record (PIR), was completed
by a physician on the applicant's enrollment in the program, on 16 November
1995.  In Section III, Item 15a. a diagnosis and entry that the applicant
was "alcohol dependent" was made.

8.  While enrolled in the program, a Standard Form (SF) 600, Chronological
Record of Medical Care, was prepared by the drug abuse counselor based on
observations or based upon what the applicant said in counseling.  This SF
600 contains the following pertinent entries:

      a.  "20 November 1995 - Patient is still in denial about extent of
problem."

      b.  "4 December 1995 – . . . .  Still talks a lot about drinking and
the 'fun.'"

      c.  "11 December 1995 – patient reports he's maintaining resistance.
Admitted to frequent craving and obsessive thoughts about drinking."
Applicant told the group, "I find myself thinking about drinking a lot."
During this counseling session, an assessment was made that the applicant
needed to develop coping strategies to handle obsessive thoughts about
alcohol.

9.  A DA Form 4466-R, Patient Progress Report, dated 25 January 1996, which
is a part of the separation action, shows that the reason for the report
was the applicant's "Release from Program."  Section VI, In Progress
Evaluation, of the report, was completed as follows:  Item 15. (Counselor's
Assessment of Progress) was checked as, "Poor."  Item 16. (Counselor's
Recommendation) was checked, "Terminate Treatment, Separate."  Item 17.
(Commander's Appraisal of Performance) was checked "Unsatisfactory."  Item
18. (Commander's Appraisal of Conduct) was checked "Unsatisfactory."  Item
19. (Commander's Decision) was checked "Terminate Treatment."  Separate."
Section VII, Release From Program, Item 20 (Reason for Release from
Program) was checked "Separation Termination as Alcohol/Drug Abuse Rehab
Failure."  Item 21 (Commanders' Assessment) was checked, "Failure."

10.  On 21 February 1996, the applicant's commander initiated action to
separate him from the Army prior to the expiration of his term of service
under the provision of AR 635-200, Chapter 9, based on his being declared a
rehabilitation failure in the ADAPCP Track II Treatment Program.

11.  In paragraph 1.g. (Specific factual reason(s) for the action
recommended), of the separation recommendation, the commander entered,
"Soldier has refused to cooperate in ADAPCP.  Further rehabilitative
efforts are not practical, rendering the Soldier a rehabilitation failure."

12.  In paragraph 1.k. (Description of rehabilitation attempts, if
applicable), of the separation recommendation, the commander entered,
"Soldier was receiving counseling but was a failure in the Track II
Treatment Program."

13.  In paragraph 1.p. (Statement why the commander does not consider it
feasible or appropriate to accomplish other disposition:), of the
separation recommendation, the commander entered, "[the applicant] has been
afforded an opportunity to rehabilitate but failed."

14.  On 27 February 1996, the applicant consulted legal counsel and after
being advised of the basis for the contemplated separation and its effect,
he waived consideration of his case by an administrative separation board.
He acknowledged that he was making the request of his own free will and had
not been coerced in his decision.

15.  On 14 March 1996, the applicant was discharged in pay grade E-5 under
the provisions of Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, chapter 9.  The narrative
reason for separation shown in Item 28, of his DD Form 214, is "Alcohol
Rehabilitation Failure."  The separation code shown in item 26, of his DD
Form 214, is "JPD."  The code shown in item 27 (Reentry Code), of the
applicant's DD Form 214 is "RE-4."  On the date of his separation, the
applicant had completed 8 years, 7 months, and 14 days active duty service,
with no lost time.

16.  In an addendum to the applicant's initial, 28 April 1999, application
to the ABCMR for a change to the narrative reason for separation and a
change to the RE code, he outlined his perspective of the events that led
to his discharge.  In this addendum, the applicant wrote, "After several
months of the rehabilitation program, I could not continue to lie about
myself any longer.  One day I left the program due to frustration, not
denial.  After leaving the program, I was informed that I would be
separated from the Army due to 'Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure.'"

17.  In another paragraph in the same addendum as referred to above, the
applicant continued by stating, "I was advised by counsel that I had
disobeyed a direct order when I left the rehabilitation program and
therefore I had no chance to win in a review of the discharge proceedings.
I was advised that I could apply to reenter the service after two years so
therefore, I agreed to the discharge without argument."

18.  In her declaration, the applicant's former commander states:  that she
became aware that he and others were using their government-issued credit
cards for personal use, to include the purchase of alcohol.  Based on this
knowledge, she referred the applicant to alcohol rehabilitation, not
because there was an alcohol-related incident requiring disciplinary
action, but rather because it appeared to her that his purchase of alcohol
suggested that he had an alcohol problem that was causing financial
irresponsibility.  The ADAPCP was a tool to help the Soldier to preempt the
need for any disciplinary action.

19.  In the declaration, the commander adds that she is not aware of any
alcohol use by the applicant during Track II.  The applicant attended the
treatment program, as scheduled.  She declared the applicant an ADAPCP
failure, she states, because she believed that further rehabilitative
efforts were not practical in view of his credit card misuse and
disinterest in continued military service.

20.  She concludes by saying in her declaration that she is now aware that
the applicant did not devote the $1,700.00 spent on the American Express
Card exclusively to the purchase of alcohol.  However, it is fair to say
that his misuse of the credit card, coupled with his poor attitude, were
the dominant themes which propelled his separation.  Technically, because
of the ways the rules were written, the applicant was a rehab failure.

21.  AR 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.

22.  AR 600-85, paragraph 1-9. c. then in effect, provides in pertinent
part, that commanders and supervisors must confront suspected alcohol or
other drug abusing individuals under their supervision with the specifics
of their behavior, inadequate performance, or unacceptable conduct.
Knowledgeable commanders and supervisors provide the necessary support for
motivating personnel to recognize the advantages of obtaining assistance.
All levels of the chain of command must take prompt action in identifying
personnel, regardless of rank or grade, if the abuse of alcohol is
suspected.

23.  AR 600-85, paragraph 3-3, then in effect, provides in pertinent part,
that identification occurs when a commander observes, suspects, or
otherwise becomes aware of an individual whose job performance, social
conduct, interpersonal relations, or health appears to be adversely
affected because of alcohol or other drugs (apparent or suspected).  When
abusers or suspected abusers are identified, they will be interviewed by
their unit commander or designated representative.  If appropriate, they
will be referred to the ADAPCP for an initial screening interview.
24.  AR 600-85, paragraph 7-11, then in effect, provides, in pertinent
part, procedures to be followed in the deletion of erroneously identified
clients into the ADAPCP.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The commander exercised her prerogative in referring the applicant to
alcohol rehabilitation when it became apparent to her that the applicant
and others were using their Government-issued credit card for personal use,
to include the purchase of alcohol.

2.  The misuse of the Government-issued credit card suggested to her that
he had an alcohol problem that was causing financial irresponsibility.

3.  The applicant was screened and was found by a trained professional, a
medical officer, to be "alcohol dependent."

4.  Comments made by the applicant and recorded by drug abuse counselors
while he was in treatment are indicative of an individual who is alcohol
dependent.  Initially, after enrollment in the program, the applicant was
assessed to be in denial.  With the progression of time, he talked a lot
about drinking and the fun.  He admitted to frequent craving and obsessive
thoughts about drinking but maintained his resistance.

5.  There is no evidence that the applicant objected to being enrolled in
the ADAPCP.  If he were not in fact alcohol dependent, there were avenues
(i.e., the chain of command above his immediate commander, the inspector
general, and his elected representative) available to him through which he
could have stated his objections.

6.  A review of all available documentary evidence revealed an absence of
efforts by drug abuse counselors, the commander, or others, to have him
deleted from the ADAPCP program if they felt he was not alcohol dependent
and had erroneously been identified as such.

7.  The applicant remained enrolled in the ADAPCP program from 16 November
1995 through 25 January 1996.  By the applicant's own admission, he became
frustrated and left the program without authority because, he stated, he
could not continue to lie about himself any longer.
8.  When the applicant was advised that separation actions were being
initiated, he sought counsel.  The applicant had over 6 years of service
and was entitled to a hearing before an administrative board.  The
applicant could have presented his case and could have contested the basis
for his being declared an ADAPCP rehabilitation failure and his separation
from the Army.  However, the applicant voluntarily elected to waive this
entitlement and not to contest these actions at the time.

9.  The Board is satisfied that all requirements of law and regulation were
met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the
separation process.  Therefore, it concludes that the overall merits of the
case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a
basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.

10.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the
applicant's request.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

jlp  _____  tap_____  kwl   _____  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable
error or injustice.  Therefore, the Board determined that the overall
merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the
records of the individual concerned.




                                  __   _Jennifer L. Prater___
                                            CHAIRPERSON


                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR2004106506                            |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20050215                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |HD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19960314                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, chapter 9                   |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |                                        |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |                                        |
|ISSUES         1.  189  |110.0000                                |
|2.  191                 |110.0200                                |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


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