MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:            1 May 2003        
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2003083526

	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 L. Amos		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Thomas B. Redfern, III		Chairperson	
	Ms. Linda D. Simmons		Member	
	Mr. John T. Meixell		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 under honorable conditions be upgraded to fully honorable.

APPLICANT STATES:  That he was told his discharge would be upgraded after  6 months.  Although he is unable to fight for his country, he is able to help in other ways.  He is the commander of a veterans group.  He feels that, to continue with his volunteer work as the commander of this group, he should at least attempt to remove this dark cloud over him because of mistakes he made as a kid.  He provides no supporting evidence.

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

The applicant was born on 17 January 1964.  He enlisted in the Regular Army on 19 January 1981.  He completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman).

The applicant was initially enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) for alcoholism on 12 August 1981.

On 25 October 1982, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for absenting himself from his place of duty.

On 10 December 1982, the applicant was disenrolled from the ADAPCP for an unknown reason.

On 27 January 1983, the applicant was again enrolled in the ADAPCP, identified as an alcohol abuser, and assigned to Track III (residential treatment).

On 4 March 1983, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice for failing to go to his appointed place of duty and for disobeying a lawful order from his superior commissioned officer to abstain from driving his passenger vehicle without a valid operator's license.  

On 4 May 1983, ADAPCP counselors informed the applicant's commander that a urinalysis sample the applicant provided had tested as a borderline positive for marijuana.

On 28 June 1983, the applicant was convicted by a special court-martial of wrongfully appropriating U. S. currency of a value of about $30.00 (he had sold aspirin purported to be methamphetamine to a confidential informant) and of violating a lawful general regulation by possessing one sheath knife with a blade length of six inches.  He was sentenced to be reduced to pay grade E-1, to forfeit $350.00 pay for two months, and to be confined at hard labor for 30 days.

On 26 July 1983, ADAPCP counselors informed the applicant's commander that the applicant appeared to have poor personal motivation to overcome his alcohol abuse problems and that his prognosis for rehabilitation was poor.  His discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9 was recommended. 

On 4 August 1983, the applicant complete a separation physical and was found qualified for separation.  A mental status evaluation was completed but the document is mostly illegible. 

The applicant's commander recommended he be discharged from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure.  The applicant was advised he could receive either an honorable or a general under honorable conditions discharge.  The commander cited as reason for the proposed action the applicant's failure to respond to rehabilitative efforts.  He specifically cited the applicant's 4 May 1983 positive urinalysis, his conviction by a special court-martial on 28 June 1983, his missed ADAPCP appointments, and his termination from ADAPCP Track III for lack of motivation.  

On 5 August 1983, the applicant was advised by consulting counsel of the basis for the contemplated separation action.  He waived representation by counsel.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  His acknowledgment form indicated he understood that he could expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions was issued to him.

The appropriate authority approved the separation recommendation and directed the applicant be issued a General Discharge Certificate.

On 18 August 1983, the applicant was discharged, with a general discharge under honorable conditions, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, alcohol rehabilitation failure.  His DD Form 214 erroneously listed the reason for discharge as drug abuse rehabilitation failure.

In April 1986, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB), in a unanimous decision, voted to deny the applicant's request to upgrade his discharge.  The ADRB directed that the applicant's DD Form 214 be corrected to show the narrative reason for separation as alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 9 provides for the discharge of members based on alcohol or other drug abuse such as the illegal, wrongful or improper use of any 

controlled substance, alcohol or other drug when the soldier is enrolled in the ADAPCP and the commander, in consultation with the rehabilitation team, determines that further rehabilitation efforts are not practical, rendering the soldier a rehabilitative failure.  The service of members discharged under this chapter will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

Army Regulation 635-200 states, in pertinent part, that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  It is issued to a soldier whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

The U. S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.  

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 Board is cognizant of the fact the applicant had just turned 17 years old when he enlisted; however, he successfully completed basic training and advanced individual training.  He was aware of what the Army's standards of conduct were, especially in regards to alcohol and drug abuse.  He was given two opportunities to overcome his substance abuse problem.

3.  The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations.  The Board is cognizant of the applicant's good post-service conduct and work with veterans organizations; however, the extent of his misconduct does not warrant upgrading his discharge to fully honorable.  

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

__tbr___  __lds___  __jtm     ___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003083536	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20030501	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1983/08/18	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200, ch 9  	
DISCHARGE REASON	A45.00	
BOARD DECISION	(NC, GRANT , DENY, GRANT PLUS)	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	Mr. Chun	
ISSUES         1.	110.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.