IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 1 December 2015 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20150005656 THE BOARD CONSIDERED THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCE: 1. Application for correction of military records (with supporting documents provided, if any). 2. Military Personnel Records and advisory opinions (if any). THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. The applicant requests his general discharge be upgraded to honorable. 2. The applicant states his discharge should be changed from "Drug Abuse – Rehab Failure" to an honorable discharge. 3. The applicant did not provide any supporting documentation. CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE: 1. Title 10, U.S. Code, section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or injustice. This provision of law also allows the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to excuse an applicant's failure to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be in the interest of justice to do so. While it appears the applicant did not file within the time frame provided in the statute of limitations, the ABCMR has elected to conduct a substantive review of this case and, only to the extent relief, if any, is granted, has determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. In all other respects, there are insufficient bases to waive the statute of limitations for timely filing. 2. The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 23 October 1979. He held military occupational specialty 36C (Wire Systems Installer/Operator). 3. His record shows he served in Germany from 21 December 1981 to on or about 1 July 1983. The highest rank he attained was private first class/E-3. 4. He received nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, on 29 September 1980, for being absent without leave from 21 July to 23 July 1980. 5. A 19 May 1983 memorandum, subject: Synopsis of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) Rehabilitation Activities, shows the applicant was enrolled in Track II of the ADAPCP on 10 January 1983 as the result of a positive urinalysis for THC (tetrahydrocannabinol). He was told on 28 January 1983 that failure to abide by the goal of total abstinence from drugs would result in a Chapter 9 administrative discharge. The applicant received another positive urinalysis for THC on 21 April 1983. He was recommended for separation from the service. 6. The applicant's immediate commander notified him of his intent to initiate separation action against him. The immediate commander indicated that the applicant had a record of substantial counseling since being assigned to the unit. The applicant had been enrolled in Track II of the ADAPCP as a result of a positive urinalysis for THC, and after numerous counselling sessions, he had another positive urinalysis and was declared a rehabilitation failure. The commander recommended a general discharge. 7. The applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander's notification. He consulted with counsel and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation for ADAPCP failure, the type of discharge he could receive and its effect on further enlistment or reenlistment, the possible effects of this discharge, and of the procedures/rights that were available to him. He indicated he understood that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions was issued to him. He indicated he would not submit a statement on his own behalf. 8. The separation authority approved the applicant's discharge and directed the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate. On 5 July 1983, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 9, Drug Abuse – Rehabilitation Failure. He had completed 3 years, 8 months, and 11 days of active service. 9. There is no indication he had previously applied to the Army Discharge Review Board. 10. 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 Soldiers 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. Initiation of separation proceedings is required for Soldiers designated as alcohol/drug rehabilitation failures. The service of Soldiers discharged under this chapter will be characterized as honorable or general under honorable conditions unless the Soldier is in an entry-level status and an uncharacterized description of service is required. 11. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, 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 or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant did not provide any evidence to support his request. 2. The evidence of record shows the applicant had a drug abuse problem. He was provided the opportunity to overcome his problem through counseling and enrollment in the ADAPCP; however, he showed poor rehabilitation potential in that he tested positive for THC while enrolled in Track II of the ADAPCP. He was therefore declared an ADAPCP rehabilitation failure and accordingly his immediate commander initiated separation action against him. All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process. 3. Based on his ADAPCP rehabilitation failure his service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel. Therefore, an honorable discharge is not warranted. BOARD VOTE: ________ ________ ________ GRANT FULL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF ________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING ___x____ ____x___ ____x___ DENY APPLICATION BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION: The evidence presented does not demonstrate the existence of a probable error or injustice. Therefore, the Board determined that the overall merits of this case are insufficient as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned. __________x________________ CHAIRPERSON I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case. ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100012492 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20150005656 4 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1