MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           29 June 2000                   
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR1999031149

	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. Robert J. McGowan		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Ms. Joann H. Langston 		Chairperson	
	Mr. John N. Slone 		Member	
	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer 		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 issued for misconduct under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 14, be voided and he be returned to active duty.

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) and was not given the opportunity to complete it.  Instead, he was given an administrative separation board which recommended that he be separated with an under other than honorable conditions (UOHC) discharge.  In support of his application, he provides:  a copy of his administrative separation board hearing; a letter of rehabilitation from a hospital; a letter of support from a friend; and the findings of the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB).

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

He was a sergeant first class who was separated with a UOHC discharge on 10 August 1998 after 19 years, 5 months, and 9 days of active Federal service.

In March 1995, the applicant was assigned to Fort Knox, Kentucky, as an instructor in the Armor Officer Basic Course.  On 7 October 1996, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for two specifications of failure to go to his appointed place of duty.  On 7 June 1997, he tested positive for cocaine use during a random drug test at his unit.  He was enrolled in ADAPCP on 14 August 1997, but was declared a rehabilitation failure on 15 September 1997 and removed from the program.

On 15 September 1997, the applicant’s unit commander notified the applicant that he was initiating action to separate him under the provisions of chapter 14, Army Regulation 635-200, by reason of misconduct (patterns of misconduct and commission of a serious offense).  The applicant was advised of his rights and consulted with legal counsel.  He requested an administrative hearing before a board of officers.  On 10 February 1998, an administrative separation board convened and found the applicant undesirable for further military service based on his commission of a serious offense (cocaine use) and recommended that he be separated with a UOHC discharge.  The recommendation was approved by the general court-martial convening authority on 5 May 1998 and forwarded to Department of the Army for final approval.  On 30 July 1998, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Manpower and Reserve Affairs) approved the applicant’s administrative separation and directed the issuance of a UOHC discharge and reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.

The applicant appeared before the ADRB in Chicago, Illinois, on 12 June 1999.  In Washington, DC on 17 June 1999, the ADRB concluded that the applicant’s UOHC discharge was inequitable and voted to upgrade the characterization to general under honorable conditions.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter l4 establishes policy and prescribes procedures for separating members for misconduct.  Specific categories include minor disciplinary infractions, a pattern of misconduct, commission of a serious offense, to include abuse of illegal drugs, convictions by civil authorities and desertion or absence without leave.  Action will be taken to separate a member for misconduct when it is clearly established that rehabilitation is impractical or unlikely to succeed.  Army policy states that a discharge under other than honorable conditions is normally considered appropriate, but a general discharge under honorable conditions or an honorable discharge may be granted.

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 violated the Army's policy not to possess or use illegal drugs and compromised the special trust and confidence placed in him as a non-commissioned officer (NCO).  As an NCO, the applicant had the duty to support and abide by the Army's drug policies.  By abusing illegal drugs, he knowingly risked a military career and diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.

3.  The applicant was enrolled in ADAPCP and was aware of the consequences of any action which would demonstrate any inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program.  As a result of the applicant’s actions and after consultation with the drug and alcohol abuse counselor, the command declared the soldier a rehabilitation failure.  He was given the opportunity for rehabilitation, but failed to take advantage of it; the fault lies solely with the applicant.

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

__jhl____  __jns____  __mhm___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR1999031149	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20000629	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY	DIRECTOR	
ISSUES         1.	110.0300	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.