APPLICANT REQUESTS:  That his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, he enlisted when he was seventeen, he hung around older people and he made a lot of mistakes.  He no longer drinks and he has become involved in the ministry.  He includes a letter of support.

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

He was born on 19 October 1970.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 30 June 1988.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63B (Light Wheel Vehicle Mechanic).  He was assigned to Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 10th Special Forces Group, Fort Devens, MA.

On 17 January 1990, the applicant was enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP), Track I, after being charged with driving while intoxicated and drinking while under the age of 21  There is evidence in his records to indicate he did not successfully complete this program.

On 10 January 1991, the applicant was again enrolled in the ADAPCP, Track II, for driving while intoxicated and drinking while under the age of 21.

On 6 February 1991, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for driving while intoxicated and disobeying a lawful order that any 10th Special Forces Group soldier not yet age 21 would not consume alcoholic beverages by consuming alcoholic beverages before he reached age 21.

On 18 February 1991, the applicant was admitted to Track III, inpatient care, at the Residential Treatment Facility, William Beaumont Army Medical Center, El Paso, TX.

On 3 April 1991, a counselor at the Facility notified the Fort Devens Alcohol/Drug Counselor that the applicant was declared a treatment failure by the staff.

The applicant was released on 5 April 1991 and returned to Fort Devens.

On 10 April 1991, the Fort Devens Alcohol/Drug Counselor agreed with the commander’s assessment that the applicant was a rehabilitative failure due to his continued refusal to participate in his own rehabilitation.
On 23 May 1991, the commander initiated separation action on the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9 for alcohol abuse rehabilitative failure.

On 28 May 1991, the applicant acknowledged notification of the action.  He submitted a statement wherein he stated he realized he was an alcoholic.  He would like a chance for recovery.  He believed he could become a sober, highly functional soldier.  As support he included a statement from the Chief, Residential Treatment Facility, which stated his prognosis was expected to be good provided he followed, for at least one year, the conditions of the Aftercare Contract.  However, he also stated that the applicant’s participation in meetings/counseling was rated as a 4, 10 being the best possible and                5 being average.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed he given a general discharge.

On 12 June 1991, he was discharged, with a general discharge, in pay grade   E-3, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9.  He had completed 2 years, 11 months and 13 days of creditable active service and had no lost time.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 9 provides for the discharge of members based on alcohol or other drug abuse such as the illegal, wrongful or improper use of any controlled substance, alcohol or other drug when the soldier in enrolled in ADAPCP and the commander, in consultation with the rehabilitation team, determines that further rehabilitation efforts are not practical, rendering the soldier a rehabilitative failure.  

On 27 August 1998, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an upgrade.

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.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.
2.  The applicant’s separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The characterization of service as general under honorable conditions was appropriate given his previous record of alcohol-related disciplinary action.

3.  While the Board has taken cognizance of the applicant’s age and his good post-service conduct, neither of these factors, either individually or in sum, warrant the relief requested.

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

                       DENY APPLICATION

                        	Loren G. Harrell
					 	Director