MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           14 April 1999
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AC98-09710
                                              AR1998014413

	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. Michael L. Engle		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Karen L. Wolff		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III		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 his under honorable conditions discharge be upgraded to honorable and he be entitled to veterans benefits.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he did not use drugs.  He provides an undated, unaddressed copy of a letter, subject: Correction of Military Records, Positive Urinalysis Tests During the Period April 27, 1982 through October 31, 1983.  This letter states that a review of his positive urinalysis test revealed that it did not meet all scientific or legal requirements for use in disciplinary or administrative actions.  It offered him the opportunity to seek relief from this Board, but advised him that this letter should not be considered as an indication that an error or injustice had occurred in his case, or that any particular form of relief would be granted by this Board.

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

He enlisted in the Army on 27 January 1982 for 3 years.  He successfully completed his initial training and was assigned to Hawaii for duty as an infantryman (11B).  He attained the rank of private first class on 15 December 1982.

On 28 February 1983 the applicant was required to provide a urine sample during a sweep of his unit.  On 7 June 1983 he was referred to the Alcohol and Drug Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) as a result of a urine positive for tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana.

The applicant failed to keep ADAPCP appointments on 9 and 16 June 1983 and tested positive again on 27 June and 19 July 1983 for THC.

On 29 July 1983 the applicant’s commander initiated a recommendation to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, due to being declared a rehabilitative failure.  The applicant was advised by counsel and made a statement in his own behalf.

On 4 August 1983 the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed that the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate, under honorable conditions.

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged on 25 August 1983.  He completed 1 year, 6 months and 28 days of creditable active service and had 1 day lost time due to AWOL.

In 1983, a "Blue Ribbon" Panel of experts in toxicology and drug testing was established to evaluate the scientific and administrative procedures used by Army laboratories where urine specimens were tested.  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 urinalysis reports.  However, the panel did find that a percentage of previously reported positive urinalysis results was not scientifically or legally supportable for use in disciplinary or administrative actions.

Subsequently, the Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel established a team of military chemists and lawyers called the "Urinalysis Records Review Team."  This team reviewed available records of all positive urinalysis results reported from 27 April 1982 through 31 October 1983.

In the applicant's case the review team discovered three positive urinalyses.  The first was processed on the specimen submitted by the applicant on 28 February 1983 and was the basis for the subject being enrolled into the ADAPCP.  The second was processed on 27 June 1983, and the third was processed on 19 July 1983.  The team specifically examined each of the test results and determined that in the first two cases either the scientific test procedures or the supporting chain of custody documents used, or both, were deficient.  Consequently, a conclusion in either of the first two instances that the applicant's urine specimen contained illegal drugs would not be legally and/or scientifically supportable. The third instance the review team determined that both the scientific test procedures used and the supporting chain of custody procedure followed were proper and met the criteria established by the Blue Ribbon Panel.  The review team therefore concluded that the applicant's urine specimen contained evidence of marijuana (THC), and that the results of the urinalysis were legally and scientifically supportable.

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 is enrolled in 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 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 was initially referred to the ADAPCP in June 1983 based upon a positive urinalysis sample that he provided in February 1983.  He was determined to be a rehabilitation failure in July 1983 based upon non-participation and additional positive urinalysis.

2.  The initial positive urinalysis of the specimen submitted by the applicant on the dates indicated were either legally or scientifically unsupportable and could not rightfully serve as a basis for adverse administrative or disciplinary actions. However, the last specimen submitted on 19 July 1983 was legally and scientifically supportable for such action.

3.  Therefore the applicant’s administrative separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, was appropriate and proper, with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

5.  The applicant’s contentions that he never used drugs and that the positive urinalysis was made in error are not supported by the record of evidence nor has he provide any substantiating evidence to support his allegations.

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

____X___  ____X___  ____X___  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AC98-09710/AR1998014413	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990414	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD, 	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19830825	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .635-200	
DISCHARGE REASON	A50.03	
BOARD DECISION	DENY,	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	A50.03	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.