Search Decisions

Decision Text

ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110010257
Original file (20110010257.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

		IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  20 December 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110010257 


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 two separate applications, that his separation authority, separation code, reenlistment code, and narrative reason for separation be changed.

2.  The applicant states he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and was self-medicating for his condition.

3.  The applicant provides:

* DD Forms 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* Record of Service
* Administrative separation board of officers proceedings
* “Medline Plus” website pages
* “Medications:  The New DUI” website pages
* Newspaper article entitled “Crime:  A Sign of PTSD”
* Self-authored letter to the Army Review Boards Agency, dated 20 May 2011

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’s DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record – Part II) shows he had prior service in the U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) and that while he was a member of the USMC he served in Vietnam for 12 months from December 1971 through December 1972.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 4 April 1980, in pay grade E-4.  He was promoted through the ranks to pay grade E-6.  He remained on active duty through reenlistments and extensions. 

3.  The applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) on 8 April 1988, for wrongful use of marijuana.

4.  The applicant’s record contains letters of indebtedness showing he had over $10,000.00 worth of debt.  He filed for bankruptcy on 17 June 1988.

5.  On 31 August 1988, the applicant was notified that action to eliminate him from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14-12c, for misconduct – use of illegal drugs and indebtedness, had been initiated.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification and, after consulting with counsel, he elected a personal appearance before an administrative separation board.

6.  On 6 October 1988, the applicant was notified that an administrative separation board was convening to determine whether he should be separated from the Army pursuant to Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14-12c, due to a positive urinalysis and indebtedness.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification upon its receipt.

7.  The discharge date of his bankruptcy was 12 October 1988. 

8.  The administrative separation board convened on 14 January 1989.  The board proceedings show that the urinalysis was completed in June 1988.  The applicant’s urinalysis was positive.  He accepted NJP and was reduced to pay grade E-5.  He was afforded the opportunity to go to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) for treatment and had to make three appointments.  He had to cancel his first appointment due to personal conflicts.  He missed his second appointment completely.  He went to the third appointment and he denied usage of drugs.  In order to be enrolled in ADAPCP you have to acknowledge that you do have a problem.  He denied usage of drugs; therefore, ADAPCP did no enroll him.

9.  During the administrative board proceedings, the licensed clinical psychologist who testified during the board proceedings stated that the applicant was a classic PTSD combat veteran.  However, there was no doubt in his mind, based on his treatment of the applicant, his career was salvageable.  He stated that as far as retention or separation of the applicant goes, there was a major problem in that it was his understanding that the Army did not recognize PTSD for medical disability purposes.  Although he didn’t refer him to the hospital, if there was no other major problems, the hospital’s hands were tied because if they referred him for medical disability, the Army medical disability system would not recognize his diagnosis.  He stated that the Army did not give any medical disability at all for the PTSD diagnosis and that separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 5, would require a diagnosis for personality disorder.  He stated that the applicant did not have a personality disorder.  He stated that if the Army regulations were written so that individuals with PTSD could receive disability, he would recommend that the applicant be retained on full duty in outpatient treatment.  The psychologist stated that he did not believe that the applicant consciously ever used marijuana.  However, he believed the applicant got so stressed that it was a possibility that he did on one occasion as an atypical stress reaction.  The Army chemist’s best guess was that the drug was ingested on the 4th, 5th, or 6th of June 1988.

10.  After careful consideration of all the evidence, the board found, by a unanimous vote, use of marijuana as alleged.  The board recommended his discharge from the service for misconduct, with the issuance of an Honorable Discharge Certificate.  

11.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation on 17 February 1989 and directed the issuance of an Honorable Discharge Certificate.  He was honorably discharged on the date of approval of his recommendation, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14 for misconduct – drug abuse. The DD Form 214 he received shows he received a JKK (misconduct – drug abuse) separation program designator (SPD) code and reentry eligibility (RE)     3 and 3C codes.

12.  The applicant submits an article on how crime relates to individuals with PTSD.  He submits a copy of the administrative board proceedings identifying one paragraph in those proceedings, which speaks to the possibility of certain over-the-counter drugs he had been taking being responsible for his positive urinalysis.  In the very next paragraph it is noted that the procedures used do not involve any enzyme process and that the Army lab uses the best kind of screening in the world.  The conclusion was that the three tests of his sample identified marijuana not ibuprophin, so the fact that he took ibuprophin before his urinalysis could not explain the positive urinalysis.  He submits website pages from Medline Plus listing several types of over-the-counter pain medications and their effects.  It also lists the specific website for each of the over-the-counter pain medications.  He submits website pages on “Medication:  The New DUI.”  These pages list list a number of drugs and their uses.

13.  The applicant submits a self-authored statement contending, in effect, that the psychologist states that he did not use drugs, which is what he has been saying all along.  He states that the doctor also stated he was using about 10 different drugs, and Advil was one of the drugs he was taking.  He states the Medline Plus webpages he submits also relate to Tylenol, Aspirin, Aleve, and Motrin and he was taking all of these drugs.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14 of the regulation deals with separation for various types of misconduct, which includes drug abuse, and provides that individuals identified as drug abusers may be separated prior to their normal expiration of term of service. Individuals in pay grades E-5 and above must be processed for separation upon discovery of a drug offense.  The issuance of a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate.

15.  Army Regulation 601-210 (Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program) states that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals 
will be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge.  Army Regulation 601-210 covers eligibility criteria, policies, and procedures for enlistment and processing into the Regular Army, U.S. Army Reserve, and Army National Guard.  Chapter 3 prescribes basic eligibility for prior-service applicants for enlistment and includes a list of Armed Forces RE codes.  RE-3 and RE-3C codes apply to persons who have a waivable disqualification.  

16.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (SPD Codes) prescribes the specific authorities (regulatory, statutory, or other directives) and reasons for the separation of members from active military service and the SPD code to be used for these stated reasons.

17.  The SPD/RE Code Cross Reference Table provides instructions for determining the RE code for Regular Army Soldiers and Reserve Component Soldiers separated for cause.  The SPD code JKK has a corresponding RE code of 3.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted.  His supporting documents have been considered.

2.  The available records show that while the psychologist did testify that the applicant was classic PTSD, he was not processed for discharge through medical channels.  The psychologist recommended the applicant remain on active duty for continued treatment as he believed that the applicant’s career was salvageable.  

3.  His records show he had NJP imposed against him after he tested positive for marijuana.  Although he was taking other medications, his records show that the Army determined that his positive results were as a result of actual marijuana use, not as a result of the use of other medications or drugs.

4.  None of the documents he submits shows that he would have tested positive for marijuana as a result of the over-the-counter drugs he was using.  An administrative separation board convened at his request and it was determined that he should be discharged from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct – drug abuse.  The psychologist testified he believed the applicant got so stressed that it was a possibility that he did on one occasion use marijuana as an atypical stress reaction.  The narrative reason and authority for separation shown on his DD Form 214 are correct.

5.  The applicant was honorably discharged for misconduct and assigned RE codes 3 and 3C and an SPD code JKK based on his reason for discharge.

6.  He has not shown error or injustice in the actions taken by the Army.  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

____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)                                         AR20110010257





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110010257



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

Similar Decisions

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070010257

    Original file (20070010257.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    He furthers states that his military occupational specialty 19D1O should have been indicated by the Board in its record of proceedings, that he does have significant achievements to present to the Board, and he adamantly denies using drugs and that he is not a drug abuser. The applicant contends that he did not receive appropriate legal counseling when the unit drug urinalysis showed he tested positive for an illegal substance on 19 April 1985. While the applicant provided new evidence to...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100026535

    Original file (20100026535.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    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 | CY2002 | 2002075052C070403

    Original file (2002075052C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    It was noted that he must continue attending ADAPCP counseling and otherwise comply with the treatment plan until his discharge or face disciplinary action. On 9 June 1995, the applicant's commander notified the applicant he was being recommended for discharge from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9 because he failed to achieve successful rehabilitation and he failed to comply with the prescribed treatment plans and goals. He was still required to complete...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110004794

    Original file (20110004794.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    There is no evidence in the applicant's record showing he was prohibited from participating in substance abuse rehabilitation programs. Army Regulation 600-85 (The Army Substance Abuse Program) states legal and administrative actions against a Soldier on deployment orders with a confirmed positive drug test may be suspended at the discretion of the separation authority until the Soldier’s unit redeploys from the theater of combat operations. There is no evidence in the applicant's record,...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100024408

    Original file (20100024408.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant indicated she was providing medical records with her application; however these records were not with the application when it was received. The commander advised the applicant of her right to have her case considered by a board officers (if she had 6 or more years of total active and reserve service or an under other than honorable conditions recommendation is made by the separation authority), to appear in person before a board officers, to submit statements in her own...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2015 | 20150002873

    Original file (20150002873.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued confirms he was discharged on 25 April 1988 under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of "drug abuse rehabilitation failure" with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 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...

  • ARMY | DRB | CY2013 | AR20130011883

    Original file (AR20130011883.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests to change the narrative reason for separation from misconduct (drug abuse) to reflect, at a minimum, misconduct only. The evidence shows that the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 14, paragraph 14-12c(2), AR 635-200, for misconduct-abuse of illegal drugs, specifically for testing positive for the drug THC on 23 April 2010. On 1 July 2010, the separation authority waived further rehabilitation and...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100013119

    Original file (20100013119.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    On 20 April 1989, he was notified by his unit commander of a pending action to separate him from active duty under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 9, by reason of drug abuse rehabilitation failure. Army Regulation 635-200 further states, in pertinent part, that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge. Those individuals can...

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002073076C070403

    Original file (2002073076C070403.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. APPLICANT REQUESTS: In effect, correction of appropriate military records to show a reentry eligibility (RE) code which would allow reenlistment. Pertinent Army regulations provide that prior to discharge or release from active duty, individuals will be assigned RE codes based on their service records or the reason for discharge.

  • ARMY | BCMR | CY2009 | 20090003546

    Original file (20090003546.txt) Auto-classification: Denied

    The applicant requests an upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge. The company commander stated the reasons for the proposed action were: (1) the applicant had been command referred to the ADAPCP for a positive urinalysis for marijuana, (2) he was initially enrolled in Track II and while enrolled in Track II he admittedly continued to use illegal drugs. Accordingly, on 26 May 1988 the applicant was discharged from active duty, in pay grade...