MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:                 15 June 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999029071

	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. Carl W. S. Chun		Director	
	Ms. Antoinette Farley		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Orville W. Troesch, Jr.,		Chairperson	
	Ms. Kathleen A. Newman		Member	
	Ms. Margaret V. Thompson. 		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 general discharge under honorable conditions be upgraded to a fully honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he had honorable service while in the military.  He states that his discharge was for the convenience of the Army.  So therefore, he accepted the early out with the understanding that his discharge would be honorable.  He provides no further documentation in support of his request.  

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 27 December 1979, for 3 years.  On  
10 February 1980, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being absent without authority on 
1 February 1980, during basic training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.  His punishment included forfeiture of $104.00 pay, 7 days extra duty and restriction.

He completed his basic training and was transferred to Fort Gordon, Georgia, 
for advanced individual training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 
36K10 (Tactical Wire Operations Specialist).  On 24 April 1980, upon 
completion of his AIT, he was transferred to Germany where he served in his MOS from 13 May 1980 to 16 February 1982.

On 16 February 1982, he returned to the United States and was assigned to Fort Polk, Louisiana.  In July 1983, he was reassigned to Fort Lewis, Washington.

On 18 July 1983, the applicant was found to be driving in the civilian community while under the influence (DWI) (intoxicated).  He was given a blood alcohol 
test and his blood alcohol content (BAC) level was determined to be 0.19, with 
0.10 considered to be legally intoxicated.  On the very same day he was stopped while driving at Fort Lewis and was found to be DWI with a BAC of 0.18.  

On 21 July 1983, the applicant was enrolled in the Army Drug and Alcohol Prevention Control Program (ADAPCP) for alcohol and cannabis abuse.

On 28 July 1983, the applicant accepted NJP for failing to go at the time 
prescribed to his appointed place of duty on 20 July 1983.  His punishment 
included 14 days extra duty and reduction to the pay grade E-3, (suspended 
until 30 September 1983).  

On 11 August 1983, the ADAPCP Rehabilitation Team recommended that the applicant be declared an ADCPCP rehabilitation failure.  On 17 August 1983, the unit commander concurred and the applicant was declared a rehabilitation failure.  The commander cited the applicant’s failure to comply with treatment plans and goals, as evidenced by continued use/abuse of both cannabis and alcohol.

On the same day, the commander initiated separation action against the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9 for Alcohol and Drug Rehabilitation Failure with the recommendation that he be discharged with a general discharge.  The applicant consulted with legal counsel, and was advised of the impact of the discharge action.  He waived personal appearance, consideration, and representation by counsel before a board of officers and made no statement.  However, he requested treatment at a “Veterans” Hospital.  A mental and physical evaluation was completed and the applicant was found to be qualified for separation.

On 19 August 1983, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

On 29 August 1983, the applicant was discharged from active duty under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 9-5, for alcohol abuse-rehabilitation failure with a General Discharge.  He had completed 3 years, 8 months and 4 days of creditable service and he had no recorded lost time.  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-4.

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 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 a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical.  At the time of the applicant's separation a honorable or general discharge was authorized.  However, an honorable discharge was required if restricted use information was used.  Further, the regulation then in effect stated that no individual would be given a General Discharge by the separation authority unless the commander initiating the action for separation recommended it and the soldier had the opportunity to receive legal counsel.

There is no record that he ever submitted a request for review of his discharge by the Army Discharge Review Board within that board’s 15-year statute of limitation.

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 or unjust.  The applicant therefore, has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors, which would have jeopardized his rights.  His substandard record of service and continued abuse of alcohol and drugs after entry into the ADAPCP fully supports the directed discharge action.

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

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

__owt___  __kan___  __mvt____  DENY APPLICATION

Carl W.S. Chun
Director, Army Board for Correction
of Military Records

INDEX

CASE ID	AC1999029071	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000615	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19830829	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 CH9  	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.