MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           29 June 2000                            
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000036101

	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	
	Mrs. Judy Blanchard-Miller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. JoAnn H. Langston		Chairperson	
	Mr. John N. Slone		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		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 honorable discharge be changed to a medical discharge or that the reason for his separation be changed to medical.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was advised by the Veterans Affairs hospital to try to change his DD Form 214. 

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

On 13 January 1981, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for 3 years.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 63N10 (Tank System Mechanic).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-2. 

On 14 May 1981, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 4 to 11 May 1981.  His imposed punishment was a forfeiture of $116.00 pay, 14 days restriction and extra duty.  

On 20 November 1981, the applicant was enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP).  His referral was based on an AWOL episode linked with alcohol abuse.  The initial assessment of the applicant revealed a history of heavy alcohol intake as well as some experimentation with other drugs.  Despite his admission of excessive drinking on a daily basis, he denied having an alcohol problem and failed to see the need to be involved in rehabilitation.  While in the ADAPCP the applicant continued to drink and missed mandatory appointments at ADAPCP.  The applicant refused to consider going into detoxification or residential treatment. 

Between 23 November 1981 and January 1982, the applicant accepted three NJP’s, under Article 15, UCMJ, for two occasions of failure to repair and for being AWOL.  His punishment included forfeitures, restrictions, extra duty and a reduction to pay grade E-1.  

Between November 1981 and February 1982, the applicant was counseled on ten different occasions for being AWOL, for failure to repair, for breaking restriction, for disobeying a lawful order and for drinking alcoholic beverages while on duty.  

On 4 February 1982, the commander received a Rehabilitation Summary letter from the ADAPCP in reference to the applicant’s progress in the rehabilitation program.  The letter stated, in effect, that the applicant did not cooperate with the rehabilitation program.  The letter further stated that the applicant missed mandatory appointments; he continued to use alcohol throughout the rehabilitative process and that he lacked the personal investment in his own rehabilitation which, clearly indicated that further rehabilitative efforts would not be productive. 

On 8 February 1982, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for Alcohol or Other Drug Abuse.  The commander’s recommendation was based on the applicant’s misconduct, his repeated failures to repair, drinking while on duty and action which indicate that he could not be rehabilitated for productive military service.  The applicant was advised by legal counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action and the rights available to him, he waived consideration, personal appearance, and representation before a board of officers.  He did not submit a statement in his own behalf. 

On 11 February 1982, the applicant was found fit for retention.

On 14 February 1982, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of an honorable discharge.  On 25 February 1982, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9 (Alcohol or Other Drug Abuse) with an honorable discharge.  He had completed 1 year, 1 month and 4 days of creditable active service.  

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 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. 

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 has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.

2.  The discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant’s overall record of military service. 

3.  The medical evidence of record shows that the applicant was medically fit for retention at the time of his separation.  Therefore, there is no basis for a medical discharge.

4.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant’s requests.

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

__jhl___  __jns___  __mhm___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000036101	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000629	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(HD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19820225	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, chapter 9 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A69.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.6900	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.