MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           22 June 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000038409

	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. Nancy Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Luther L. Santiful		Chairperson	
	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Member	
	Mr. Roger Able		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 records be corrected to show he separated in pay grade E-4.  He requests a copy of a letter from Colonel Y___ which was a letter of recommendation.  He requests that his DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty be corrected to show he completed his high school GED.  He requests that he receive any medals or ribbons to which he is entitled.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was forced to take a field grade Article 15 as a result of an error in a urinalysis test.  He was advised the results were not scientifically supportable.  He never received any of his service medals.

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

He enlisted in the Regular Army on 22 July 1980.

The applicant was promoted to Specialist Four (SP4), E-4 on 1 February 1982.  

On 18 May 1982, the applicant accepted non-judicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failing to go to his appointed place of duty.  His punishment included a reduction to Private First Class (PFC), E-3, suspended.  On 27 May 1982, the suspension was vacated.

The applicant was promoted to SP4 again on 1 November 1982.  

On 11 April 1983, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for wrongful possession of marijuana/hashish, wrongful transfer of marijuana/hashish, and wrongful sale of marijuana/hashish.  His punishment included a reduction to Private (PV2), E-2.

On 21 June 1983, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for wrongful possession of marijuana.  His punishment included a reduction to Private (PV1), E-1.

On 21 July 1983, the applicant was released from active duty upon completing his normal term of service.  His DD Form 214 and Personnel Qualification Record (PQR), Part II show he was awarded the sharpshooter badge, rifle M-16, the Army Service Ribbon and the Overseas Service Ribbon and that he was not a high school graduate or equivalent.

The applicant’s DA Form 2-1, PQR Part II and his DA Form 2A, PQR Part I, dated 8 April 1983, show his civilian education as 2 years of high school.  There is no evidence of record to show he completed his high school GED.

There is no letter of recommendation from Colonel Y___ or from anyone else in the applicant’s records.  
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 (DCSPER) 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    28 January 1983.  The second was processed on 3 February 1983.  The third was processed on 10 February 1983.  The team specifically examined each of the test results and determined that in the specimen processed on 3 February 1983 the scientific test procedures were deficient.  Consequently, a conclusion that the applicant’s urine specimen contained illegal drugs would not be scientifically supportable.  The specimens processed on 28 January and           10 February 1983, however, were determined to have been scientifically supportable.  No legal determination concerning the chain of custody documents was made regarding any of the three urinalysis specimens.

Beginning in July 1984, a program was instituted whereby DCSPER notified all persons whose test results had been reviewed by the review team that they had the right to apply to this Board to request correction of any error or injustice which may have resulted.  Two notification letters were prepared.  One informed the recipient that his urinalysis had met the standards set by the Blue Ribbon Panel and was therefore supportable.  The second advised the recipient that his urinalysis (or at least one, if he had more than one) had failed to meet the established standards and was therefore unsupportable.  Due to human error incorrect letters were sent to some individuals.  The error was detected and copies of the proper letters were sent on approximately 31 January 1985.

Army Regulation 600-8-22 provides policy and criteria concerning individual military decorations, service medals and service ribbons and similar devices awarded in recognition of accomplishment.  It states that replacement of medals or service ribbons for individuals not on active duty may be made at cost price.  Requests for medals should be directed to National Personnel Records Center, National Archives Records Administration, Army Medals Section, 9700 Page Avenue, St. Louis, MO  63132-5100.  No money should be mailed until instructions are received.

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 applicant did not receive an Article 15 for any of the three urinalysis specimens that the “Urinalysis Records Review Team” reviewed.   The Article 15 he received on 11 April 1983, which reduced him two grades, was for wrongful possession of marijuana/hashish, wrongful transfer of marijuana/hashish, and wrongful sale of marijuana/hashish.  The Article 15 he received on 21 June 1983, for which he was reduced to PV1, was for wrongful possession of marijuana.  He never received an Article 15 for wrongful use of marijuana and so the determination that one or more of his urinalysis tests was scientifically unsupportable is immaterial.

3.  There is no evidence of record to show the applicant completed his high school GED.  There is no evidence of record to show he was given a letter of recommendation from Colonel Y___.  Requests for medals should be directed to the National Personnel Records Center, National Archives Records Administration, Army Medals Section, 9700 Page Avenue, St. Louis, MO     63132-5100. 

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

__lls___  __aao___  __ra____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000038409	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000622	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	133.01	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.