MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:          

	BOARD DATE:                      12 September 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:              AR2000042101

	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. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Calvin M. Fowler		Chairperson	
	Mr. Fred Eichorn		Member	
	Ms. Carol Jo Suiter		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 be upgraded to honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was not provided the appropriate treatment that he requested for his alcohol abuse.  He also states that upon return from the Gulf War, he requested enrollment in Track III, which requires 6 weeks of hospitalization.  He further states that he did not know anything about the disease of alcoholism and that he really wanted to recover and be rehabilitated.  In support of his application he submits a copy of his DD Form 214.

EVIDENCE OF RECORD:  The applicant's military records show he enlisted in the USAR on 8 December 1984 and continued to serve until he was honorably released on 17 August 1988 in order to reenlist in the Regular Army.  He reenlisted in the Regular Army on 18 August 1988 as a personnel management specialist.

On 29 August 1990 the applicant went AWOL and remained absent until 1 September 1990 (4 days).

On 16 December 1990 the applicant was referred to the Operation Awareness Program due to an alcohol-related domestic disturbance.  During his enrollment in Track II his attitude and duty performance declined and he continued to use alcohol.

On 14 June 1991, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for being AWOL from 1 May 1991 to 5 May 1991 (5 days) and from 
28 May 1991 to 29 May 1991 (1 day).  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2.

On 14 June 1991, the unit commander, in consultation with the Clinical Director of the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Control Program (ADAPCP), determined that further rehabilitation efforts were not practical and declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure and recommended that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9.

On 1 July 1991, the unit commander submitted his recommendation to separate the applicant under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 9, for alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure.  The applicant consulted with counsel and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf and did not requested treatment in a VA Medical Center.

On 17 July 1991, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 24 July 1991.  He had a total of 
2 years, 10 months and 29 days of creditable service and 9 days of lost time
due to AWOL.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 16 March 2000.  The ADRB considered the applicant’s record of service, including the infractions of discipline, the extent thereof, and the seriousness of the offenses.  The ADRB also noted that the applicant was enrolled in the ADAPCP and was aware of the consequences of any action that would demonstrate any inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program.  The ADRB further noted that as a result of the applicant’s actions and after consultation with ADAPCP counselor, the command declared him a rehabilitation failure.  The ADRB concluded that the applicant’s discharge was appropriate because the quality of service was not consistent with the Army’s standard for acceptable personal conduct and performance of duty by military personnel.  The ADRB was
convinced that the reason for discharge and the characterization of service were both proper and equitable, and voted to deny relief on 21 April 2000.

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.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  At the time of the applicant’s discharge on 24 July 1991, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefor were appropriate considering all facts of the case.

2.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that he was not provided the appropriate treatment that he requested for his alcohol abuse.  However, the
applicant was referred to the Operation Awareness Program due to an alcohol-related domestic disturbance and during his enrollment in Track II his attitude and duty performance declined and he continued to use alcohol.  The applicant was also enrolled in ADAPCP and was aware of the consequences of any action that would demonstrate any inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program.  As a result of the applicant’s actions and after consultation with the ADAPCP counselor, the command declared him a rehabilitation failure.
3.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that he requested enrollment in Track III which requires 6 weeks of hospitalization.  However, there is no evidence in the available records, and the applicant has provided no evidence, to show that he requested enrollment in Track III or that competent medical authority determined that Track III was necessary.  The Board also noted that after consultation with counsel, just prior to discharge, he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf, did not request treatment in a VA Medical Center
and he never raised the issue of referral to Track III.

4.  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.

5.  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:

CMF____  FE______  CJS_____GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000042101	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000912	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD to HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19910724	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200,  C9	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.