MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:      

		BOARD DATE:           7 October 2003
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003087836

	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. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Ms. Shirley L. Powell		Member	
	Mr. Robert L. Duecaster		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 his discharge was the result of his being on drugs and he does not do drugs anymore.  He further states that he did not know the effect his discharge would have on him until years later.

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

He enlisted in Dallas, Texas, on 19 May 1983, for a period of 3 years, training as a material control and accounting specialist and assignment to Europe.  He completed his basic combat training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and was transferred to Fort Lee, Virginia, to undergo his advanced individual training (AIT).   He completed his AIT and was transferred to Germany on 15 September 1983.  He was advanced to the pay grade of E-4 on 1 September 1984.

On 11 December 1984, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against the applicant for behaving disrespectfully towards a superior commissioned officer.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay (suspended for 30 days) and extra duty.

On 28 January 1985, the applicant received a letter of reprimand (LOR) from his commander for his poor judgment and association with local nationals of dubious character, who were admitted drug users and of which one was a minor.

On 5 February 1985, the applicant was enrolled in the Alcohol Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) as a result of a military police blotter for wrongful possession and use of hashish.  His first 101 days in Track II was satisfactory; however, on 17 May 1985, he was involved in an alcohol related incident and on 12 July 1985, he received a positive urinalysis for THC (tetrahydrocannabinol).  The clinical director of the ADAPCP declared him a rehabilitation failure on 2 August 1985.

Meanwhile, on 24 July 1985, NJP was imposed against him for disobeying a lawful order from a warrant officer and communicating a threat to injure another soldier.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3, a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.

On 20 September 1985, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for his repeated instances of drug abuse.  After consulting with counsel, the applicant elected to submit a statement in his own behalf, whereas he asserted that he was not guilty of using drugs, that the charges against him had been blown out of proportion and that he was a good worker who deserved to receive an honorable discharge.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 7 October 1985 and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 25 October 1985, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure.  He had served 2 years, 5 months and 7 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.  

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 Board has reviewed the applicant's records and finds that his misconduct and overall record of service does not constitute fully honorable service.

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

__slp  ___  __rld ___  __fe ____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003087836	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/10/07	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1985/10/07	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200/CH9	
DISCHARGE REASON	DRUG ABUSE REHAB FAIL	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  680	144.6900/A69.00	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.