MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:              3 May 2000
	DOCKET NUMBER:     AR1999030440

	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.

	Ms. Joyce A. Wright		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Raymond V. O’Connor, Jr.		Chairperson	
	Mr. John H. Kern		Member	
	Mr. Ernest W. Lutz, Jr.		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 and that the narrative reason for his separation be changed to a more favorable reason.

APPLICANT STATES:  That his general discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident in 15 months of service with no other adverse action.  He also states that he successfully completed the alcohol rehabilitation program while in the military and was still discharged.  The applicant further states that there have been no repeated incidents of this nature in the past 15 years since this particular incident occurred.  In support of his application he submits several certificate of appreciation, training, educational achievements and letters of appreciation.

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

He enlisted on 8 November 1982 as a food service specialist.

On 24 August 1983, the applicant was enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Control Program (ADAPCP) Track III by his commander for alcohol and drug abuse.  After initial consultation, the applicant was recommended for resident rehabilitation treatment at the Naval Drug Rehabilitation Center at San Diego, California.

On 23 November 1983, the commanding officer of the Naval Drug Rehabilitation Center prepared a narrative summary stating the applicant participated in various therapies and counseling program designed to assist him in the pursuit of a more acceptable lifestyle without resorting to the use of drugs.  He also stated that the applicant has been clinically evaluated as having made unsatisfactory progress in treatment because he failed to respond to treatment, and continued to demonstrate a negative attitude toward the military.  As a result, the narrative summary recommended administrative discharge in accordance with Army regulations.  In conclusion, the commanding officer of the Naval Drug Rehabilitation Center recommended, as part of the applicant’s continuing recovery from drug and/or alcohol abuse, an aftercare program to address his specific problems.

On 11 January 1984, the clinical director, ADAPCP counsel and the Alcohol and Drug Control Officer concurred with the decision that the applicant was a rehabilitation failure and recommended that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9.

On 19 January 1984, the applicant was notified by his unit commander that action was being initiated to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure.  He based his recommendation on the applicant’s continued abuse of drugs and alcohol.

The applicant consulted with counsel and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf and requested treatment in a VA medical center.

On 8 February 1984, the unit commander submitted his recommendation to separate the applicant under the provisions of AR 635-200, chapter 9, for alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure.  On 10 February 1984, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that he be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was discharged on 14 February 1984.  He had a total of 1 year, 3 months and 7 days of creditable service.

The applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge on 6 March 1984.  The ADRB determined that the characterization of the applicant’s discharge was too harsh, that there was no lost time, no judicial punishment and that the applicant held the grade of PFC/E-3 from the time of enlistment to the time of discharge.  On 12 December 1984, the ADRB voted 3 to 2 to change the characterization of the applicant’s service from general to fully honorable, but also voted unanimously not to change the narrative reason (“ALCOHOL ABUSE REHABILITATION FAILURE”) for his discharge.

On 13 December 1994, the ADRB erroneously advised the applicant by letter that his discharge was proper and equitable and that a request for change in the character and/or reason of the applicant’s discharge had been denied.  There also is no indication in the available records that the applicant’s DD Form 214 was ever corrected to reflect this decision of the ADRB to upgrade his discharge to honorable or that the applicant was ever provided an Honorable Discharge Certificate to replace his General Discharge Certificate.

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 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.  

CONCLUSIONS:

1.  At the time of the applicant’s discharge on 14 February 1984, the type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all facts of the case.

2.  On 12 December 1984, the ADRB voted to change the characterization of the applicant’s discharge from under honorable conditions (general) to fully honorable.  In view of this action by the ADRB, no action is required by this Board on that part of the applicant’s request to change the characterization of his discharge to honorable.

3.  Contrary to the applicant’s contentions that his discharge was inequitable because it was based on one isolated incident and that he successfully completed the alcohol rehabilitation program, the Board noted that the applicant was clinically evaluated as having made unsatisfactory progress in treatment, failed to respond to treatment and was considered a rehabilitation failure by the rehabilitation team.

4.  The Board, after careful review of all the facts in this case, has determined that the narrative reason (“ALCOHOL ABUSE REHABILITATION FAILURE”) for the applicant’s discharge on 14 February 1984 was correct at the time of the applicant’s discharge and is correct now based on evidence of record.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to a change in the narrative reason on his DD Form 214 with a separation date of 14 February 1984.

5.  The Board noted the applicant’s contention that he had not been involved in any alcohol related incidents since his discharge from the Army.  The Board congratulates the applicant on his rehabilitation.  However, this post-service achievement is not sufficient as a basis to change the narrative reason for the applicant’s discharge.

6.  The Board also noted that through administrative error the applicant was not tendered a corrected DD Form 214 or an Honorable Discharge Certificate in compliance with the decision of the ADRB on 12 December 1984.  Therefore, the Army Review Boards Agency Support Division-St. Louis will issue a new DD Form 214 showing that the applicant’s character of service was honorable and an Honorable Discharge Certificate.

7.  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 the aforementioned requirement.

8.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request to change the narrative reason for discharge.

DETERMINATION:  The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.

NOTE:  The Board requests that Army Review Boards Agency Support Division-St. Louis issue the individual concerned a new DD Form 214 to replace the DD Form 214 now held by him with an effective date of 14 February 1984 showing in item 24 that his character of service was “HONORABLE”.  The Board also requests that the individual concerned be issued an Honorable Discharge Certificate to replace the General Discharge Certificate now held by him.

BOARD VOTE:

RVO_____  JHK____  EWL____  GRANT

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

Karl F. Schneider
Director, Army Review Boards Agency

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999030440	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	20000503	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD to HD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	19840214	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR 635-200,  C14	
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	GRANT	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1  189		
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.