RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:	  


	BOARD DATE:	  4 October 2007
	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070005117 


	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.  


Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano

Director

Ms. Joyce A. Wright

Analyst


The following members, a quorum, were present:


Ms. Susan A. Powers

Chairperson

Mr. Edward E. Montgomery

Member

Mr. Qawiy A. Sabree

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, that item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation), of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), be corrected to show the entry "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)" instead of "Drug Rehabilitation Failure."

2.  The applicant states, that he had turned himself into his commander for a drug problem.  However, at that time, he was suffering from PTSD.  He received no counseling or any type of help in this regard and, no longer wanted to spend another day in the military.  He was told that drug rehabilitation failure would expeditiously get him out of the Army and would not affect him applying for jobs.  That judgment was an error.  He states that to this date, because of this, he has been unable to find employment. 

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 and several medical documents from his medical records in support of his request. 

COUNSEL'S REQUEST, STATEMENT AND EVIDENCE:

Counsel has remained silent.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant's record shows he enlisted in the Regular Army on 18 October 2001, in pay grade E-4, for training as a field artillery surveyor, in military occupational specialty (MOS), 82C.  

2.  On 23 March 2006, the applicant was involved in an alcohol or drug related incident.  His commander was advised he was, in effect, required to refer him to the Army Substance Abuse Program (ASAP) for screening.  

3.  On 23 March 2006, the applicant was command referred to the ASAP into the outpatient treatment program for rehabilitation.  The reason for referral was the improper use of drugs and use of prescribed medications due to depression by mental health as well as alcohol and marijuana. 

4.  While attending ASAP, a group session meeting, the applicant admitted to continued alcohol use but not to current drug use.  At his last group session on 11 April 2006, he admitted suicidal ideations and was referred to mental health with command involvement and was placed in Darnall Army Hospital, Fort Hood, Texas, for 5 days.  He reported that his present problems were depression and bipolar disorders.  He also reported he had entered treatment in Bamberg, Germany, on 29 March 2002, as a self referral for alcohol and was released from treatment on 2 December 2002 and was determined to be a rehabilitative failure but was not separated from the Army at that time. 

5.  On 21 April 2006, the applicant's progress in the program was characterized as unsatisfactory.  His participation in weekly group sessions was minimal.  He had attended five sessions at which he related continued use while in treatment.  The Chief, SARD (Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Department), opined that in light of the extensive treatment opportunities the applicant had, it appeared he either could or would not discontinue his excessive alcohol and cannabis use.  If his substance use was not arrested, he would most certainly be involved in another substance-related incident.

6.  The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on 22 May 2006.  His mental status evaluation revealed a fully oriented alert individual, whose behavior was normal.  His mood or affect was unremarkable, thinking process was clear, and his thought content was normal.  He possessed sufficient mental capacity and was mentally responsible to understand and participate in proceedings.  He met the retention requirements of Army Regulation 40-501, chapter 3 (Did not have an unfitting diagnosis that would require medical evaluation board [MEB]).  

7.  The remarks section, of his mental status evaluation, indicated that the applicant was seen for a chapter 9 and that his mental status was within normal limits.  The psychologist found no evidence of a major psychiatric disorder that would excuse him of responsibility for his actions.  He was psychiatrically cleared for any action deemed appropriate by command.

8.  On 5 June 2006, the applicant's commander advised the applicant he was taking action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, paragraph 9-2, for alcohol or other drug abuse rehabilitation failure.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation, the applicant’s enrollment in ASAP, his admission to the use of marijuana compounded by prescription medication for depression, his continued substance abuse, and his rehabilitation failure in ASAP.  He was recommended for an honorable discharge.  He was informed that the intermediate commanders and separation authority were not bound by his recommendation as to the character of service.  The separation authority could direct that his service be characterized as honorable or general, under honorable conditions.

9.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  
10.  On 6 June 2006, a bar to reenlistment (DA Form 4126-R Bar to Reenlistment Certificate) was initiated.  The reverse side of his DA Form 4126-R is unavailable for review. 

11.  The applicant provides several copies of his Standard Form (SF) 600 (Chronological Record of Medical Care) which show that he was seen by medical personnel during the period June through August 2006.  He was diagnosed as having depression and a bipolar II disorder. 

12.  On 6 July 2006, the applicant consulted with counsel.  He waived his rights and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  He also understood that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general, under honorable conditions, discharge was issued to him.  He understood that if he received a discharge/character of service that was less than honorable, he could apply to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) or this Board for an upgrade.  He realized that an act of consideration by either board did not imply that his discharge would be upgraded.

13.  On 13 July 2006, the applicant's commander recommended that he be separated for alcohol or other drug abuse rehabilitation failure.  

14.  On 14 July 2006, the applicant's battalion commander recommended approval of the action and further recommended that he be issued an honorable discharge.

15.  On 1 August 2006, the separation authority approved the recommendation for the applicant's discharge and directed he be furnished an honorable discharge.  The applicant was discharged on 17 August 2006.  He had a total of 4 years and 10 months of creditable service.

16.  Item 26 (Separation Code), of the applicant's DD Form 214, shows the entry "JPC" and, item 28 shows the entry, "Drug Rehabilitation Failure." 

17.  The applicant's signature was affixed to item 21 (Signature of Member being Separated), of his DD Form 214, indicating he had reviewed the information shown on the form and it was complete and correct, to the best of his knowledge.

18.  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 Army's 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.

19.  Army Regulation 635-5-1, in effect at that time, prescribed the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives), the reasons for the separation of members from active military service, and the separation program designators to be used for these stated reasons.  The regulation shows that the separation program designator (SPD) "JPC," as shown on the applicant’s DD Form 214, specifies the narrative reason for discharge as "Drug Rehabilitation Failure" and that the authority for discharge under this SPD is "Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9."

20.  Army Regulation 601-280 prescribes the eligibility criteria and options available in the Army Reenlistment Program. Chapter 6 of the regulation provides for barring from reenlistment individuals whose continued active duty is not in the best interest of the military service.  This chapter specifies that bars will be used when immediate administrative discharge from active duty is not warranted. Examples of rationale for reenlistment disqualification are, but not limited to, AWOL, indebtedness, recurrent nonjudicial punishment, slow promotion progression, no demonstrated potential for future service, substandard performance of duties, and substandard appearance (overweight).

21.  Paragraph 6-5, of Army Regulation 601-280 states, in pertinent part, that approved bars to reenlistment will be reviewed by the proper unit commander at least 6 months after the date of approval, and 30 days before the Soldiers’ scheduled departure from the unit, or separation from the service.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence shows that the applicant was command referred to the ASAP on 27 March 2006 and was admitted into the outpatient treatment program.  He admitted to continued substance abuse.  He was referred to mental health treatment with command involvement and was placed in the Darnall Army Hospital, Fort Hood.  At that time, he indicated that his present problems were depression and a bipolar disorder.  

2.  The applicant alleges that, at the time he turned himself into the commander for a drug problem, he was suffering from PTSD; however, the evidence shows he was identified as a drug or other substance abuser on the blotter due to a drug or alcohol-related incident. 

3.  The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation.  He was diagnosed as having depression and a bipolar II disorder prior to his discharge.  His mental evaluation indicated that he did not have an unfitting diagnosis that would require an MEB.  The psychologist found no evidence of a major psychiatric disorder that would excuse him of responsibility for his actions.  He was psychiatrically cleared for any action deemed appropriate by command.

4.  Separation proceedings were initiated against the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug rehabilitation failure.  

5.  The evidence shows that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug rehabilitation failure.  He was issued a SPD Code of "JPC" and was furnished an honorable discharge.

6.  The separation code of "JPC" was entered in its appropriate space on the DD Form 214 and the narrative reason for his discharge was shown to be, "Drug Rehabilitation Failure."  Therefore, in the absence of evidence to show these entries were made erroneously, there is an insufficient basis to change his narrative reason to "PTSD."

7.  The applicant alleges that he received no counseling or any type of help in this regard and no longer wanted to spend another day in the military.  The evidence shows he entered treatment in Bamberg, Germany, on 29 March 2002, and was determined to be a rehabilitative failure at that time but was not separated from the Army.  It is apparent that he was provided with another chance to prove himself in 2002 and he was allowed to remain on active duty until his most recent incident in which he was identified as a drug rehabilitation failure.

8.  The applicant alleges that he was told that identification as a drug rehabilitation failure would expeditiously get him out of the Army and would not affect him in applying for jobs.  That judgment was in error.  He states that to this date, because of this, he has been unable to find employment.  The applicant has provided no evidence, and there is none, to support his allegations.

9.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show, to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement



BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___SAB__  __EM___  __QS____  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.




_____Susan A. Powers_____
          CHAIRPERSON




INDEX

CASE ID
AR20070005117
SUFFIX

RECON
YYYYMMDD
DATE BOARDED
20071004
TYPE OF DISCHARGE
HD
DATE OF DISCHARGE
20060817
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY
AR 635-200, chap 9
DISCHARGE REASON

BOARD DECISION
DENY
REVIEW AUTHORITY

ISSUES         1.
110
2.

3.

4.

5.

6.