MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            22 February 2001                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2000049742

	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	
	Mr. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ted S. Kanamine		Member	
	Mr. Stanley Kelley		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 an honorable discharge. 

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was told at the time that his discharge would be automatically upgraded in two years.

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

He enlisted on 5 October 1982 for a period of 3 years and training as a medium helicopter repairer.  At the time of his enlistment he indicated that in March 1981 he had been charged by civil law officials in San Diego, California for possession of marijuana and that the charges were subsequently dropped.  He also indicated in the remarks section of his contract that he had never been involved in the use, possession or sale of marijuana and he had never lost a job, been arrested by police or treated for the use of marijuana.

He successfully completed his training at Fort Eustis, Virginia and was transferred to Fort Sill, Oklahoma for duty as a helicopter repairer.

On 12 August 1983 nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for the wrongful use of marijuana.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2, a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.

He was also enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) for marijuana abuse in August 1983.  However, after a positive result for marijuana from a second urinalysis test, it was determined on 3 August 1984, that further rehabilitation efforts were not practical. 

On 22 August 1984, the applicant’s commander initiated action to separate the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure. 

After consulting with counsel, the applicant elected to submit a statement in his own behalf whereas he asserted that his positive urinalyses had been his only offenses during his nearly 2 years of service and that he deserved an honorable discharge.  He also declined treatment in a Veterans Medical Center.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 2 October 1984 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure.  He had served 1 year, 11 months and 28 days of total active service.

There is no indication in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 9 of that regulation contains the authority and outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol and/or drug abuse.  A member may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, or successfully complete a rehabilitation program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical.  Characterization of service will be determined solely by the soldier’s military record that includes the soldier’s behavior and performance during the current enlistment.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  It is issued to soldiers whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  There are no automatic provisions, nor have there ever been, to automatically upgrade a discharge made under these provisions.

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’s administrative separation was accomplished in accordance with applicable regulations with no evidence of any violations of the applicant’s rights.  Accordingly, he was given the proper narrative reason for his separation and he has provided no evidence to justify an upgrade of his discharge.

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not supported by the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.  There never have been nor are there now any provisions to automatically upgrade a discharge without application from the individual concerned. 

4.  The applicant had two incidents of misconduct involving drug abuse and the Board finds that such misconduct does not constitute fully honorable service.

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:

________  ________  ________  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___sk___  ___tsk  __  ___rvo __  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2000049742	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2001/02/22	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1984/10/02	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/CH9	
DISCHARGE REASON	DRUG ABUSE REHAB FAILURE	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  680	144.6900/A69.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.