MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:   

	BOARD DATE:           16 May 2002                  
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2001065807

	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. G. E. Vandenberg		Analyst	

  The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Fred N. Eichorn		Chairperson	
	Mr. Roger W. Able		Member	
	Ms.  Paula Mokulis		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 under honorable conditions be upgraded to honorable and that his narrative reason for discharge be changed. 

APPLICANT STATES:  In effect, that he was led to believe that his discharge could be changed after a period of time.  He states that he should not be considered an alcohol rehabilitation failure, as through no fault of his he had not completed the rehabilitation course.  He states that he was young (19) when he "opted" for an early out, which he now sees was the wrong choice.

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

The applicant entered active duty, at age 19, on 26 July 1984.  He completed basic combat training and advanced individual training (AIT) with award of the military occupational specialty (MOS) 13M (Multiple Launch Rocket Systems Crewman). His first duty assignment was in Germany.

The applicant's records contain several general counseling statements that commend him on his duty performance.  However, it also contains four counseling statements of a derogatory nature; one for poor personal appearance, one for his attitude and social life, and two for alcohol related incidents.  

The applicant was enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) 6 August 1985.  He completed Track I and attended 6 sessions of Track II, group counseling.  The applicant's record does not contain the ADAPCP paperwork.

He received nonjudicial punishment (NJP), under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for being drunk and disorderly on 12 February 1986.

On 12 March 1986, the applicant's company commander recommended that the applicant be barred from reenlistment as a result of the alcohol related NJP and counseling statements.  The applicant appealed the barring action.

At the same time the company commander also initiated administrative actions to have the applicant declared an alcohol rehabilitation failure and commenced discharge proceedings under Army Regulation (AR) 635-200, chapter 9.  

The applicant again received NJP for being drunk and disorderly on 9 April 1986. He appealed this punishment stating that although he had been drinking, the incident was not a result of his drinking but that he had just been defending himself from another soldier who had been drinking in excess.  

On 23 April 1986, the discharge authority accepted the recommendation and directed that the applicant be discharged under the provisions of AR 635-200, paragraph 9-6, that his service be characterized as general under honorable conditions, and that the applicant not be placed in the Individual Ready Reserve.

The applicant was discharged on 15 May 1986 under honorable conditions with a narrative reason of "alcohol abuse – rehabilitation failure."  He had served 1 year, 9 months, and 20 days of his three-year active duty obligation with no reported lost time.

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.  

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 that:

1.  The Board finds that the discharge proceedings were conducted in accordance with law and regulations applicable at the time.  The character of the discharge is commensurate with the applicant's overall record of military service. 

2.  The applicant's discharge was not voluntary or optional on his part, nor was it an "early out" program.

3.  Although his record does not contain the ADAPCP intake paperwork, a requirement of the alcohol rehabilitation program is for the service member not to drink.  The Board concludes that as he continued to drink, stopped attending Track II meetings before completion of the program, and continued to be involved in alcohol related incidents, he is clearly shown to be an alcohol rehabilitation failure.  Therefore, the narrative reason for discharge is appropriate.

4.  The applicant has failed to demonstrate that he was any less mature than other soldiers of the same age.  The Board notes that he was 19 when he volunteered for military service, that he had successfully completed basic training and AIT without incident, and that his job and professional performance was never questioned.  His satisfactory performance demonstrates his capacity to serve.

5.  While the Board notes the applicant's age, at the time of the violations that led to his discharge, his current employment concerns, and his post-service conduct; none of these factors, either individually or in sum are so noteworthy as to warrant the relief requested.

6.  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

___FNE_  ___RWA_  __PM____  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2001065807	
SUFFIX		
RECON		
DATE BOARDED	20020516	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE		
DATE OF DISCHARGE		
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY		
DISCHARGE REASON		
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.	144.4500	
2.	144.6900	
3.	144.9200	
4.		
5.		
6.