IN THE CASE OF:
BOARD DATE: 2 August 2011
DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100029966
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 that his general discharge (GD) be upgraded.
2. The applicant states he received a letter three months after his discharge stating his urine analysis was done incorrectly. He hopes the letter is included in his military record.
3. The applicant provides no supporting documentation.
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 applicants 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 applicants failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing.
2. The applicant served on active duty in the Regular Army from 2 March 1981 through 9 December 1983.
3. The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) as follows on:
a. 14 April 1981, for fighting with a fellow Soldier;
b. 1 September 1983, for illegal use of marijuana; and
c. 6 October 1983, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty.
4. On 1 November 1983, the applicant was referred to the Fort Lewis Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) based on a command directed screening on 18 August 1983.
5. The applicant submitted an undated statement wherein he stated he would not comply with the Track II ADAPCP he was enrolled in.
6. On 7 November 1983, separation proceedings were initiated for failure or an inability to comply with prescribed treatment plans and goals for drug rehabilitation efforts.
7. On 30 November 1983, the applicant acknowledged the proposed separation proceedings under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9 and waived his right to counsel.
8. The separation authority approved the separation and directed the applicant receive a GD.
9. The applicant was discharged on 9 December 1983 with a GD. He had 2 years, 9 months, and 7 days of creditable service with no lost time. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) lists his awards as the Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, and Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.
10. The available record does not contain any evidence of an improper urine analysis-.
11. 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 Soldiers because of alcohol or other drug abuse. A member who has been referred to the 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. Initiation of separation proceedings is required for Soldiers designated as alcohol/drug rehabilitation failures. The service of Soldiers discharged under this chapter will be characterized as honorable or general under honorable conditions unless the Soldier is in entry-level status and an uncharacterized description of service is required.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:
1. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
2. The record does not contain and the applicant has not provided any evidence to show that the urine analysis was improperly conducted or evaluated.
3. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to warrant an upgrade of the applicant's 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) AR20100029966
3
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100029966
2
ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
1
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100014369
He was recommended for administrative separation under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations). The immediate commander cited the specific reason as the applicant's positive drug tests and his poor potential for rehabilitation for drug abuse as evidenced by his continued abuse which rendered him a drug abuse rehabilitation failure. The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued confirms he was discharged by reason...
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 | CY2013 | 20130007798
On 12 October 1984, he was notified that his immediate commander was initiating action to discharge him from the Army, in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations Enlisted Personnel), chapter 9. His commander cited his positive urinalysis tests results, recorded on 13 October 1983 and 27 June 1984, as the basis for declaring him a rehabilitative failure. On 12 October 1984, the applicants immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070005986
The applicant states, in effect, that he was discharged from active duty with a general discharge due to a positive drug test. The evidence shows that the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure. The applicant alleges that he stated to his superiors that at no time did he use marijuana while he was on active duty; however, the evidence shows he was enrolled in the ADAPCP and was declared a rehabilitation failure.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100020604
The immediate commander cited the specific reason as the applicant's positive drug tests and his poor potential for rehabilitation for drug abuse as evidenced by his continued abuse which rendered him a drug abuse rehabilitation failure. The panel's report entitled "Review of Urinalysis Drug Testing Program," dated 12 December 1983, concluded that the testing procedures used by all laboratories were adequate to identify drug abuse and found no significant evidence of false positive...
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 | CY2010 | 20100026815
This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicants 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. On 16 January 1984, the applicants unit commander recommended the applicants separation under the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of rehabilitation failure drug abuse. The applicant's record is devoid of any...
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 | CY1997 | 9705738
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. Accordingly, on 6 December...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1997 | 9705738C070209
In accordance with Army Regulation 15-185, the application and the available military records pertinent to the corrective action requested were reviewed to determine whether to authorize a formal hearing, recommend that the records be corrected without a formal hearing, or to deny the application without a formal hearing if it is determined that insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice. Accordingly, on 6 December...