MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

		IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:          13 November 2003    
		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR2003090073

	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	
	Ms. Wanda L. Waller		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Arthur A. Omartian		Chairperson	
	Ms. Eloise C. Prendergast		Member	
	Mr. Ronald E. Blakely		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, that his general discharge be upgraded to honorable.  

APPLICANT STATES:  The applicant did not provide an explanation with his application.  In support of his application, he submits a letter of support from a Career Counselor at the Arizona Army National Guard Recruiting and Retention Command and a DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) for the period ending 31 March 1983. 

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

While in the Army National Guard, the applicant was ordered to involuntary active duty for a period of 20 months and 19 days.  He was discharged from the Army National Guard on 5 June 1977 and entered active duty on 6 June 1977.  He was honorably discharged on 23 August 1978.  On 24 August 1978, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  

On 2 June 1980, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for disobeying a lawful order.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3 (suspended for 3 months), a forfeiture of pay, and extra duty.

On 5 February 1981, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for failure to repair.  His punishment consisted of a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.

On 13 April 1981, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for failing to obey a lawful order, using disrespectful language, and disobeying a lawful order.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3 (suspended for 
6 months) and extra duty.  On 9 July 1981, the suspension of the reduction to 
E-3 was set aside.
  
On 3 June 1982, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for disobeying a lawful command and failure to repair (three specifications).  His punishment consisted of a reduction to E-3 (suspended and to be automatically remitted if not vacated before 3 August 1982), a forfeiture of pay, extra duty, and restriction.  On 26 July 1982, the suspension of the punishment of reduction to 
E-3 was vacated.

On 23 November 1982, the applicant was enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) following the submission of a positive urine specimen for marijuana during a unit sweep.

On 20 January 1983, the applicant submitted a positive urine specimen for marijuana.

On 4 February 1983, in consultation with the rehabilitation team, the applicant's unit commander declared him a rehabilitation failure.

On 10 March 1983, the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure.  

On 10 March 1983, after consulting with counsel, the applicant waived consideration of his case by a board of officers, waived a personal appearance before a board of officers and elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf.

On 11 March 1983, the applicant’s unit commander submitted a recommendation to discharge the applicant from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure.

On 16 March 1983, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that the applicant be furnished a general discharge.     

Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with a general discharge on 31 March 1983 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure.  He had served 6 years, 1 month and 6 days of creditable service.

There is no indication in the applicant’s records that he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for a discharge upgrade with its 15-year statute of limitations. 

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 the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (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.  At the time of the applicant's separation an honorable or general discharge was authorized. 

Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7, provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.  Whenever there is doubt, it is to be resolved in favor of the individual.
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 compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

4.  The applicant has failed to convince the Board through the evidence submitted or the evidence of record that his discharge was unjust and should be upgraded.

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

AAO___  ECP____  REB_____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2003090073	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20031113	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19830331	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200 Chapter 9	
DISCHARGE REASON	Drug abuse rehabilitation failure	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	110.0200	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.