PROCEEDINGS

	IN THE CASE OF:  

	BOARD DATE:           29 January 2002                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001061236

	I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings 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. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Member	
	Ms. Karen A. Heinz		Member	

	The applicant and counsel if any, did not appear before the Board.

	The Board considered the following evidence:

	Exhibit A - Application for correction of military 
                records
	Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including
	            advisory opinion, if any)

FINDINGS:

1.  The applicant has exhausted or the Board has waived the requirement for exhaustion of all administrative remedies afforded by existing law or regulations.

2.  The applicant requests that his Officer Evaluation Report (OER) for the period 13 August – 14 December 1988 be amended to delete all references to his need for alcohol abuse rehabilitation and that he be given the notes and documents utilized to determine that he had an alcohol problem and needed rehabilitation.

3.  The applicant states that the senior rater made comments regarding a drinking problem which were never founded and in fact were repudiated by both Army and civilian alcohol and drug counselors.  A one-time incident does not constitute a drinking problem.  

4.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 5 October 1994 (docket number AC 93-08983).  The DD Form 149 and supporting documents for this case are not available.

5.  The applicant’s OER for the period ending 14 December 1988, Part IVb, contains the comment that his lack of judgment led to his responsibility for an incident which involved a failure of the senior-subordinate relationship…and a one-time subversion of the personal values incumbent to officership.  Part Vc contains the comment that a single incident in which he became intoxicated and made… totally inappropriate comments to a female cadet...reflected a failure in moral judgment inconsistent with the values he was to teach as well as exhibit.  A further comment stated that the investigation into that incident led to his being relieved of his duties in the Reserve Officers’ Training Corps.  Part Ve contained the comment that his potential as an officer following counseling and rehabilitation was without question.  Part VIIb contained the comment that his potential depended upon successful rehabilitation from a drinking problem he had yet to acknowledge and his adopting behaviors that manifested the primacy of professional interest in his subordinates.  

6.  The applicant had provided two documents with his unsuccessful OER appeal.  One was a letter dated 23 January 1989 from an Employee Assistance Program Counselor at Watervliet Arsenal, Watervliet, NY.  That letter indicated the applicant had completed an assessment for an alcohol problem on              19 December 1988 and the counselor could find nothing in his past which would indicate a present problem with alcohol.  The counselor referred him to a civilian organization for a more in-depth assessment.  The 13 February 1989 letter from the civilian organization indicated that, due to a lack of Army cooperation to get further information about the applicant’s situation, their finding was based solely on the interviewing of him and his wife.  It was their finding that he did not appear to suffer from alcohol dependence or abuse and the incident at the party represented an isolated episode of intoxication.

7.  Army Regulation 623-105, paragraph 4-21, states that no reference will be made to an incomplete investigation (formal or informal) concerning an officer.  This restriction is intended to prevent unverified derogatory information from being included in evaluation reports.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant did have an alcohol abuse assessment by a military facility the date after the ending date of the contested OER in addition to a later, more in-depth assessment by a civilian organization.  There is no evidence to show he had prior alcohol-related problems.  The Board concludes that it was premature at best for the raters to state he had a drinking problem that needed rehabilitation rather than one, isolated drinking incident.  

2.  The contested OER should be amended to remove the references in Parts Ve and VIIb concerning rehabilitation.  However, the investigation concluded that the incident did occur and the Board sees no problem with the OER as a whole.

3.  There appears to be no further need to respond to the applicant’s request to provide the notes and documents utilized to determine that he had an alcohol problem and needed rehabilitation.  In any case, such “notes and documents” would have been in his raters’ possession, not the Board’s.

4.  In view of the foregoing, the applicant’s records should be corrected as recommended below.

RECOMMENDATION:

1.  That the applicant’s OER for the period ending 14 December 1988 be amended to delete, in Part Ve, the phrase “and rehabilitation” and, in Part VIIb, the phrase “successful rehabilitation from a drinking problem he has yet to acknowledge and.”

2.  That so much of the application as is in excess of the foregoing be denied.

BOARD VOTE:  

__aao___  __mhm___  __kah__  GRANT AS STATED IN RECOMMENDATION

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

			Arthur A. Omartian
		______________________
		        CHAIRPERSON

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001061236	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020129	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	(GRANT)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	111.01	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.