MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           11 December 2001                             
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001060132

	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. Karol A. Kennedy		Chairperson	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		Member	
	Mr. Thomas E. O’Shaughnessy, Jr.		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, an upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge.

APPLICANT STATES:  No contentions submitted.

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

On 1 September 1982, the applicant enlisted into the Regular Army for 4 years.  He completed the required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 19D10 (Cavalry Scout).  The highest grade he achieved was pay grade E-3.  

On 7 April 1983, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for dereliction in the performance of duty.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of $133.00 pay, 14 days restriction and extra duty.

On 17 August 1984, the applicant was enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP).  A treatment plan was devised, with the approval of the applicant, which consisted of individual and group counseling and urinalysis testing.  

On 21 October 1984, the applicant was apprehended by military police for the possession of marijuana.  The particulars surrounding the incident are missing from his file.

On 4 December 1984, while attending a group counseling session, the applicant failed an alcohol sensor test.

On 6 December 1984, 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 was a rehabilitative failure because of his continued use of drugs and alcohol and because he failed to demonstrate the motivation necessary to deal effectively with his drug and alcohol abuse.  It was recommended that the applicant be separated from military service under the appropriate regulation.  

On 4 January 1985, the applicant accepted an NJP, under Article 15, UCMJ, for the wrongful possession of drug paraphernalia.  His imposed punishment was a reduction to pay grade E-1, a forfeiture of $298.00 pay per month for 2 months, 45 days restriction and extra duty.  

On 10 January 1985, the applicant completed a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.

On the same day, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation and was found to be mentally competent, able to distinguish right from wrong and to adhere to the right.  The applicant was also found to be mentally capable of understanding and participating in board proceedings. 

On 5 February 1985, the commander notified the applicant that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure.  The commander’s recommendation was based on the applicant’s action, which indicates 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 was afforded the opportunity to submit statements in his behalf, but he declined to do so.

On 5 March 1985, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  On 29 March 1985, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9 (Drug Abuse-Rehabilitation Failure), with a general discharge.  He had completed a total of 2 years, 6 months and 29 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.  In view of the applicant's numerous acts of indiscipline, it does not appear that his GD was too severe.

4.  Therefore 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

__kak___  __reb___  __teo___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001060132	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20011211	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	(GD)	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19850329	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, chapter 9 .  .  .  .  .  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A69.00	
BOARD DECISION	(DENY)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.6900	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.