MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:      

	BOARD DATE:           10 February 1999           
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-09070
				   AR1999015598

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the record of consideration of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual.

	Mr. Loren G. Harrell		Director	
	Mr. William Blakely		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Patrick Bogenberger		Chairperson	
	Mr. Elzey J. Arledge, Jr.		Member	
	Mr. Gary F. Geraets		Member	

	The Board, established pursuant to authority contained in 10 U.S.C. 1552, convened at the call of the Chairperson on the above date.  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.

	The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That the narrative reason “Drug Abuse Rehabilitation Failure” be changed on his DD Form 214 (separation document).

APPLICANT STATES:  That he did not fail the drug rehabilitation treatment program and never tested positive for drugs while in rehabilitation.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show:

The applicant enlisted in the Army on 1 December 1987 for a period of 4 years.  He was awarded military occupational specialty 94B (Food Service Specialist).  His highest rank attained was specialist four (E-4).

While assigned to Fort Campbell, Kentucky, the applicant received a Letter of  Reprimand for possessing a knife with a blade more than three inches long.  On 13 December 1989 he received nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, UCMJ, for disobeying a lawful order, failing to go to the brigade dining facility and for failing to go to urinalysis testing at the time prescribed.  On 3 January 1990 he received nonjudicial punishment for wrongful use of marijuana and cocaine.

On 17 January 1989 he was enrolled into the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) as a self-referral for marijuana abuse.  He attended the Short Term Outpatient Program for 3 days, during which his drug use problem was evaluated, and it was determined that his problem appeared to be moderate to severe.  As a result, he was enrolled in the Extended Track II program for weekly group/individual counseling.  After approximately 3 months he was re-evaluated, and it was determined that he had improved enough to be released.  

On 20 November 1989 the applicant was re-enrolled in Track II as a command referral for a cocaine positive urine test.  The ADAPCP counselor felt at that time that the applicant could only benefit from a structured setting, such as inpatient treatment, and that further outpatient treatment would be non-productive.  

On 25 January 1990 the applicant’s commander notified him of his intent to recommend his elimination from the Army under the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200, drug abuse rehabilitation failure, and advised him of his rights in the discharge process.  

On 29 January 1990 the commander recommended his discharge, as indicated above, citing as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s twice testing positive for marijuana.  He also noted the applicant’s receipt of nonjudicial punishments for drug-related misconduct.   

The applicant acknowledged the separation action and submitted a statement in his own behalf.  In his statement the applicant stated that he had always done his best to seek self-improvement and to maintain a soldierly attitude and a good military appearance.  He requested an honorable discharge.

The separation action was approved by the appropriate authority and on 
5 February 1990 the applicant was discharged from the Army with a general discharge.  He had served 2 years, 2 months, and 5 days of total active service.

The applicant submitted a request for an upgrade of his general discharge to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB).  On 4 June 1997 the ADRB granted his request and upgraded his discharge to fully honorable.  The ADRB noted that the government introduced limited use information during the discharge process and the use of this information mandated the issuance of an Honorable Discharge Certificate.  The ADRB was convinced, however, that the reason for his discharge was proper and equitable and to change it would be inappropriate. 

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 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.  

DISCUSSION:  Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:

1.  The applicant’s administrative separation under the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200, was accomplished in substantial compliance with the regulation.  However, the ADRB subsequently determined that the character of his discharge should be upgraded to fully honorable and directed correction of the records, accordingly.  

2.  The ADRB further determined, however, that the reason for his discharge (drug abuse rehabilitation failure) was proper and equitable.  This Board concurs with that determination and finds no reason for changing the reason for the applicant’s discharge.  

3.  The Board notes the applicant’s contention that he “did not fail the drug rehabilitation treatment program and never tested positive while in rehabilitation.” However, the Board is of the opinion that the necessity to re-enroll him in the ADAPCP after his release from the program is sufficient evidence of his failure of drug rehabilitation.  Once enrolled in the ADACPC, whether still actively participating or having been declared “improved” enough to be released, the applicant is not expected to use drugs again.  Any subsequent use is evidence that he was never rehabilitated.     

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

_____X___  _____X___  ____X____  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director