Applicant Name:

Application Receipt Date: 070725	

Prior Review    Prior Review Date: None

I.  Applicant Request
Request:  Upgrade     Reason Change     RE Code Change    

Issues: See enclosed DD Form 293 submitted by the applicant.

II.  Were Proper Discharge and Separation Authority procedures followed?  
Yes    No        Tender Offer:   ?????

See Attachments:  Legal     Medical     Minority Opinion     Exhibits 

III.  Original Character of Discharge
Unit CDR Recommended Discharge:    Date: 940407
Discharge Received:     Date: 940513   
Chapter: 9    AR: 635-200
Reason: Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure
RE:     SPD: JPD
Unit/Location: C Co, 4/22d Inf, Fort Lewis, WA 

Time Lost: None

Article 15s (Charges/Dates/Punishment): 940503, Failure to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty (940324), and drunk on duty X 2 (940301 and 940405), reduction to E-1, forfeiture of $416.00 pay per month for 1 month, 45 days extra duty, and 45 days restriction, (FG). 

Court-Martials (Charges/Dates/Punishment): None

Counseling Records Available: Yes    No 

IV.  Soldier’s Overall Record
Year/Month:  1972/06  
HOR City, State: El Paso, TX
Current ENL Date: 921110    Current ENL Term: 03 Years  ?????
Current ENL Service: 01 Yrs, 06Mos, 04Days ?????
Total Service:  01 Yrs, 06Mos, 04Days ?????
Previous Discharges: None
Highest Grade: E3
Performance Ratings Available: Yes    No 
MOS: 11B10/Infantryman   GT: 109   EDU: HS Grad   Overseas: Hawaii   Combat: None
Decorations/Awards: ASR, NDSM

V.  Post-Discharge Activity
Post Service Accomplishments: None Listed

VI.  Facts, Circumstances, and Legal Basis for Separation

      a.  Facts and Circumstances:
      The evidence of record shows that on 21 March 1994, the unit commander in consultation with the Clinical Director/ADAPCP declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure.  On 7 April 1994, the unit commander notified the applicant of initiation of separation action under the provisions of Chapter 9, AR 635-200, by reason of drug rehabilitation/ASAP failure, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was advised of his rights.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, was advised of the impact of the discharge action, and did not submit a statement in his own behalf.  The unit commander subsequently recommended separation from the service.  On 19 April 1994, the separation authority waived further rehabilitative efforts and directed that the applicant be discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions. 

      b.  Legal Basis for Separation:  
      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 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.  Army policy states that an honorable or general discharge is authorized depending on the applicant’s overall record of service.  However, an honorable discharge is required if restricted use information is used in the discharge process.
      
      
      
      
      
      

      c.  Response to Issues, Recommendation and Rationale:  
      After careful examination of all the applicant's military records for the period of enlistment under review and the issues he submitted, the analyst recommends that relief be denied in this case.  The analyst noted that the applicant was enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) and was aware of the consequences of any action which would demonstrate any inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program.  As a result of the applicant’s actions and after consultation with the drug and alcohol abuse counselor, the command declared the Soldier a rehabilitation failure.  The evidence of record establishes the fact that the applicant was properly counseled and afforded a reasonable opportunity to overcome his problems.  The analyst noted that the applicant met entrance qualification standards to include age.  There is no evidence that the applicant was any less mature than other Soldiers of the same age who successfully completed military service.  Furthermore, the U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant submits a DD Form 293 requesting a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.  Additionally, If the applicant desires to reenlist, he should contact the local recruiter to determine his eligibility to reenlist.  Those individuals can best advise a former service member as to the needs of the Army at the time, and are required to process waivers of reentry eligibility (RE) codes.  In view of the foregoing, the analyst determined that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable and recommends to the Board to deny relief.

VII.  Summary of Army Discharge Review Board Hearing 

Type of Hearing: 			Date: 25 July 2008              
Location: Washington, DC

Did the Applicant Testify?  Yes     No  

Counsel: NA

Witnesses/Observers: NA 

Exhibits Submitted: NA




VIII.  Board Decision
The discharge was:			Proper	 	Improper	
				                 	Equitable	 	Inequitable	

The characterization of service was:   Proper	 	Improper	
				                 	Equitable	 	Inequitable	

The narrative reasons were: 	       	Equitable	 	Inequitable	

DRB voting record:  		      Change 1    No change 4   - Character
		 			      Change 0    No change 5   - Reason
					      (Board member names available upon request)

IX.  Board Discussion, Determination, and Recommendation
After carefully examining the applicant’s record of service during the period of enlistment under review and considering the analyst’s recommendation and rationale, the Board determined that the discharge was both proper and equitable, and voted to deny relief.























								        
X.  Board Action Directed
No Change 
Issue a new DD Form 214  
Change Characterization to:    
Change Reason to: NA
Other: NA
RE Code:  
Grade Restoration:   No   Yes  Grade: NA

XI.  Certification Signature and Date
Approval Authority: 

MARK E. COLLINS
Colonel, U.S. Army
President, Army Discharge Review Board

Official: 


CHRISTINE U. MARTINSON			DATE: 31 July 2008
Lieutenant Colonel, U.S. Army
Chief, Secretary Recorder
ARMY DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD - CASE REPORT AND DIRECTIVE

Case Number AR20070010419
______________________________________________________________________


Page 5 of 5 pages