MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           24 February 1999  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999018020

	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. Kenneth Aucock		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Mark D. Manning		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, physical disability retirement or separation.   
APPLICANT STATES:  That had he received the correct diagnosis and treatment, he would have completed his Army service honorably.  

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

The applicant enlisted in the Army National Guard on 13 January 1989, entered on active duty for training on 7 February 1989, completed training as a medical specialist, and was released from active duty on 7 July 1989.

On 23 October 1990 he enlisted in the Regular Army for four years and was assigned to an infantry unit in Germany.

A 13 May 1991 report of mental status evaluation shows that the applicant was mentally responsible, had the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings, and met the mental requirements for retention in the Army.  That report indicates that the applicant denied any suicidal or homicidal thought, and that his nervousness might have interfered with his memory.  His anxious and depressed feelings might be due to his situation and his history of prior and current alcohol consumption indicated a serious problem; however, there was no evidence of a psychiatric disorder of sufficient severity to warrant disposition through medical channels.  The applicant was cleared for any administrative action deemed appropriate. 

A 3 June 1991 memorandum from the clinical director of the Baumholder [Germany] community counseling center to the applicant’s commanding officer reveals that the applicant was referred by his commander to the Baumholder Community alcohol and drug abuse prevention and control program (ADACP) for evaluation on 28 January 1991.  The applicant’s primary substance of abuse was alcohol.  Medical evaluation was conducted on 25 February 1991 at which time the diagnosis of alcohol dependency was made, and it was determined that the applicant had problems significant enough to warrant enrollment in Track II.  Assistance and resources were made available to him.  The rehabilitation team met on 30 May 1991 and determined that the applicant had not made satisfactory progress, further rehabilitation efforts were not justified, and the applicant should be discharged.  That memorandum also indicated that the applicant had failed to comply with treatment plans and goals; and on 15 March was involved in an incident in which, while intoxicated, he verbalized suicidal ideations. 

A 26 July 1991 report of medical examination indicates that the applicant was medically qualified for separation with a physical profile series of 1 1 1 1 1 1.  In the report of medical history he furnished for the examination, the applicant stated that he was in good health.
On 23 August 1991 the applicant’s commanding officer notified the applicant that he was initiating action to discharge the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, alcohol abuse.  That official stated that the applicant was counseled, while in the ADAPCP Track II program, on 4 March for consuming alcohol, on 7 May for failing to prepare for duty and failure to be at his place of duty, on 8 May for consuming alcohol, and on 9 May for failing to obey a lawful order.  On 3 June 1991 the applicant was declared a failure of the drug and alcohol program.  The applicant’s commanding officer informed the applicant that, in consultation with the rehabilitation team, he had determined that further rehabilitative efforts were not practical due to his lack of self commitment.  He stated that he was recommending that the applicant receive an Honorable Discharge.

The applicant consulted with counsel and stated that he understood the basis for the contemplated action, its effects, and the rights available to him.  He declined to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

On 26 August 1991 the applicant’s commanding officer recommended to the separation authority that the applicant be discharged.  The separation authority approved that recommendation on 27 August 1991 and directed that the applicant receive an Honorable Discharge.

The applicant was discharged at Fort Dix, New Jersey, on 6 September 1991 for alcohol abuse-rehabilitation failure.  He had 10 months and 14 days of service.

In a 13 July 1996 decision the VA denied the applicant’s claim for service connection for psychiatric disorder.  

In a 6 March 1998 decision the VA denied the applicant’s claim for service connection for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

On 15 May 1998 the Army Discharge Review Board changed the reason for the applicant’s discharge, from alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure, to alcohol rehabilitation failure.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Paragraph 9-2 of that regulation states, in effect, that a soldier enrolled in the alcohol and drug abuse prevention and control program may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program when there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical.

Paragraph 9-4 of the aforementioned regulation states that the service of soldiers discharged will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

Army Regulation 40-501, paragraph 3-3b(1), as amended, provides that for an individual to be found unfit by reason of physical disability, he must be unable to perform the duties of his office, grade, rank or rating.

Army Regulation 635-40, paragraph 2-2b, as amended, provides that when a member is being separated by reason other than physical disability, his continued performance of duty creates a presumption of fitness which can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence that he was unable to perform his duties or that acute grave illness or injury or other deterioration of physical condition, occurring immediately prior to or coincident with separation, rendered the member unfit.

Army Regulation 635-40 was changed by Department of the Army message, dated 27 February 1973, to provide that when a member is undergoing evaluation because of a referral arising during processing for separation for reasons other than physical disability, his continued performance of duty until he is scheduled for separation creates a presumption that the member is fit for duty.
 
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 was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The applicant had help with his alcohol dependency and refused to cooperate and to help himself.  He was discharged for his alcohol rehabilitation failure.  No medical evidence has been presented by the applicant to demonstrate an injustice in any medical diagnosis or in the medical treatment he received while in the Army.
  
2.  Service medical records do not indicate any medical condition incurred while entitled to receive basic pay which was so severe as to render the applicant medically unfit for retention on active duty.  At the time of the separation physical examination, competent medical authority determined that the applicant was then medically fit for retention or appropriate separation.  The applicant himself stated that he was in good health just prior to his discharge.  Accordingly, the applicant was separated from active duty for reasons other than physical disability.    

3.  The applicant did not have any medically unfitting disability which required physical disability processing.  Therefore, there is no basis for physical disability retirement or separation.

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

___cmf__  ___mdm__  ___bje__  DENY APPLICATION

						Loren G. Harrell
						Director

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999018020	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	19990224	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD, GD, UOTHC, UD, BCD, DD, UNCHAR)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	YYYYMMDD	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1. 108.00		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.