IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  7 July 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090002856 


THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE:

1.  Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any).

2.  Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any).


THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests, in effect, that the narrative reason for his discharge be changed.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that the narrative reason is not an error.  It is true; but, at the time he was a young 17 year old.  He is now 41 years of age, has his life in order, and really wants to reenlist in the Reserve or in the Guard.

3.  The applicant submitted no additional documentation in support of his request.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  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 also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant’s failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so.  While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant’s failure to timely file.  In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.

2.  The applicant was born on 1 December 1967.  He enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve on 22 February 1985.  On 26 February 1985, he enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed one station unit training at Fort Benning, Georgia, and was awarded the military occupational specialty 11X, Heavy Anti-Armor Weapons Infantryman.

3.  A DA Form 4465 (ADAPCP (Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program) Client Intake Record), dated 7 October 1985, shows the applicant self-referred himself and was enrolled in the ADAPCP for the abuse of cannabis.  The applicant was enrolled in Track II of the Program.

4.  A DA Form 4466 (ADAPCP Client Progress Report), dated 14 January 1986, on file in the applicant's service personnel record shows he was progressing satisfactorily in the ADAPCP.  A recommendation was made for the applicant's retention on active duty at the time.

5.  On 3 April 1986, the applicant's commander was notified, in response to his request for information pertaining to the applicant's rehabilitation activities, that the applicant's progress had been unsatisfactory due to his continued use of THC (Tetrahydrocannabinol) as evidenced by a second positive urinalysis.  The clinical director of the Illesheim Community Counseling Center opined that the applicant's potential for rehabilitation appeared to be poor and recommended that he be considered for administrative separation as deemed appropriate by the commander.

6.  The applicant underwent a mental status evaluation on 25 April 1986.  The applicant's behavior was found to be normal.  He was found to be fully alert and fully oriented.  His mood or affect was unremarkable, his thinking process was clear, and his thought content was normal.  The evaluating psychiatrist, an Army Medical Corps officer, found him to be mentally responsible and considered him to have the mental capacity to understand and participate in separation proceedings.

7.  On 20 April 1986, the applicant's unit commander notified him he was taking action to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), Chapter 9.  The reason, the commander stated was because the applicant had displayed poor rehabilitation potential due to his resistance to overcome his abuse of drugs through counseling in Track II of the ADAPCP.  The applicant was advised that he had the right to consult with military legal counsel or to consult with a civilian attorney at his own expense and of other rights that were available to him, to include the opportunity to submit statements in his own behalf.

8.  On 20 April 1986, the applicant acknowledged his commander's notification  of his intention to discharge him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9.

9.  On 20 April 1986, the applicant waived consideration of his case and a personal appearance before a board of officers.  The applicant also waived his right to consult with counsel and accept representation by counsel and to make and submit statements in his own behalf.  Additionally, the applicant stated he was not requesting treatment in a Veterans Administration medical center.

10.  On 20 April 1986, the applicant's unit commander recommended that the applicant be discharged before the expiration of his term of service pursuant to the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9.

11.  In approving the applicant's discharge, the approving authority stated that it was his opinion that the applicant showed no useful potential for useful service under the condition of full mobilization and therefore directed that he be separated from the service.  The applicant's discharge was approved by the appropriate authority on 20 April 1986.  The approval authority directed that the applicant receive an honorable discharge certificate.

12.  The applicant was discharged in the rank and pay grade of Specialist Four, E-4, on 20 June 1986, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure.  On the date of his discharge the applicant had completed 1 year, 3 months, and 25 days of net active service with no days of time lost.  At the time of his discharge, the applicant was 18 years, 6 months, and 20 days of age.  

13.  Item 13 (Decorations, Medals, Badges, Citations, and Campaign Ribbons Awarded or Authorized) of the applicant's DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) shows that he was awarded the Army Service Ribbon, the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar (M-16 Rifle), the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Hand Grenade Bar, the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with TOW (Tube-launched, Optically-tracked, Wire-guided Missile) Gunner Bar, the Expert ITV (Improved TOW Vehicle) Gunner Qualification Badge, and the Expert Infantryman Badge.  The record contains no documentary evidence of acts of valor or achievement which warrant special recognition.

14.  On 9 February 1988, the applicant applied to the ABCMR for a change of the separation code, the reenlistment code, and the narrative reason for separation shown on his DD Form 214.  The applicant's request for action was administratively closed because he had not exhausted his administrative remedies by applying to the Army Discharge Review Board first.  There is no evidence the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for changes to his DD Form 214 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 or enrolled in an alcohol or drug abuse rehabilitation counseling program may be separated because of his or her 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show, 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 requests that the narrative reason for his discharge be changed but he admits that his separation from the Army was not an error.  The evidence shows that he enrolled himself in the ADAPCP for the abuse of cannabis.  Initially he made satisfactory progress; however, when his commander inquired of the clinical director about his progress some four months later, the applicant's progress was considered to be unsatisfactory due to his continued use of THC as evidenced by a second positive urinalysis.  The clinical director opined that the applicant's potential for rehabilitation appeared to be poor and recommended that he be considered for administrative separation as deemed appropriate by the commander.

3.  Based on the clinical director recommendation and the applicant's failures, the commander recommended the applicant's discharge for the abuse of drugs.

4.  From review of documentary evidence, the applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  On his separation from the Army, the applicant's DD Form 214 was correctly completed to reflect that he had been discharged before his normal expiration of his term of service as a drug abuse rehabilitation failure.

5.  The applicant now implies that his youth caused him to not be successful in his rehabilitation efforts; however, there is no evidence he was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same or of a younger age who underwent ADAPCP rehabilitation and were successfully rehabilitated and therefore successfully completed their term of service.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request for a change to the narrative reason for his discharge.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___X____  ____X___  ___X___  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.




      _______ _   X_______   ___
               CHAIRPERSON
      
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.



ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090002856





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090002856



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1