MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            19 November 1998 
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-11338

	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	
	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Thomas A. Pagan		Member	
	Ms. Barbara J. Ellis		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:  In effect, that his general discharge be upgraded to
an honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was under the influence of alcohol when he took illegal drugs (cocaine and marijuana).  He also states that he was
overly depressed and confused, and later became sober and admitted
his guilt to his superiors.  He further states that he is recently divorced.   In support of his application he submits a copy of a sworn statement and a copy of his DD Form 214. 

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

He enlisted on 2 February 1984 for a period of 4 years.  He continued to serve until he was honorably discharged on 11 February 1988 for immediate reenlistment on 12 February 1988 for a period of 3 years. 

On 6 February 1989, a urine specimen was obtained from the applicant
which tested positive for cocaine and marijuana.

On 6 March 1989, the applicant was referred to the Fort Story, Virginia Counseling Center for evaluation due to his positive drug screen for cannabis and cocaine.  On 7 March 1989, the applicant was admitted to Portsmouth Naval Hospital for detoxification for cocaine and was diagnosed as cocaine dependent. He was released on 21 March 1989 and screened at Fort Story’s Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Control Program (ADAPCP) on 23 March 1989.  The applicant indicated that his marital, financial and military responsibilities were too great and stated that he wanted out of the service.  He also stated that he was refusing treatment from the ADAPCP.  

On 27 March 1989, the Alcohol and Drug Control Officer/clinical director considered the applicant a rehabilitative failure.  He also stated that the applicant was drug dependent and pursuant to AR 600-85, paragraphs 4-8b and 4-26, 
that action to separate him from the Army should be expeditiously effected.

On 30 May 1989, nonjudical punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for dereliction of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3 (suspended), and 10 days extra duty.

On 15 June 1989, the applicant was notified that action to separate him 
from the service was being initiated under the provisions of Army Regulation
635-200, chapter 14, by reason of misconduct.  He acknowledged receipt of 
the notification and, after consulting with counsel, he opted not to submit a
statement in his own behalf.
On 22 June 1989, the commander initiated the recommendation for separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, 
chapter 14-12c, for misconduct.  He based his recommendation on the 
applicant’s diagnosis of cocaine dependence, refusal of treatment from the 
ADAPCP, and his illegal drug abuse.

The appropriate authority approved his request on 11 July 1989 and directed that he be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 14 July 1989
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, for misconduct – abuse of illegal drugs.  He had served 5 years, 5 months, and 13 days of total active service.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 14 January 1990.  The ADRB determined that his discharge was proper and equitable, and denied his request on 2 May 1991.

Army Regulation 600-85 serves as the authority for the Army’s ADAPCP.  It states, in pertinent part, that the applicant’s rehabilitation progress will provide the commander with an overall impression of the applicant’s progress 
in the ADAPCP.  It also states that when the commander determines that
duty performance and progress is unsatisfactory and cannot justify further
rehabilitation efforts in a military environment, discharge from the military service will be effected.  It further states that ADAPCP services would continue to
be provided until the client is separated and that enlisted soldiers identified as
illegally abusing drugs would be processed for separation in accordance with
AR 635-200.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of
enlisted personnel.  Chapter 14, establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separation of member for misconduct.   Specific categories include minor
disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, conviction by civil authorities, desertion or absences without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it clearly establishes that rehabilitation is impracticable or is unlikely to succeed.

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.  A soldier who exhibits such abuse of drugs and alcohol is referred for treatment and rehabilitation in a local ADAPCP.  The applicant received the benefit of such a program, however, he refused treatment from the ADAPCP
and was deemed a rehabilitative failure.

2.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance
with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which could
jeopardize his rights.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate
considering all of the facts of the case.

4.  The applicant has failed to convinced the Board through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be
upgraded.

5.  Careful consideration has been given to the applicant’s contentions.
However, his illegal drug abuse and patterns of misconduct were too serious
to warrant equitable relief.

6.  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

___be___  ___fe___  ___tap___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director