MEMORANDUM OF CONSIDERATION

	IN THE CASE OF:       

	BOARD DATE:            4 February 2003
	DOCKET NUMBER:   AR2002076645

	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. Jessie B. Strickland		Analyst	

The following members, a quorum, were present:

	Mr. Melvin H. Meyer		Chairperson	
	Mr. Curtis L. Greenway		Member	
	Mr. Ronald J. Weaver		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.

APPLICANT STATES:  That at the time of his discharge he was informed that his discharge would be automatically upgraded 6 months after his discharge if he accepted the discharge.

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

He initially enlisted in the United States Army Reserve (USAR) on 15 September 1978 and served in the USAR until he enlisted in the Regular Army on 31 October 1979 for a period of 4 years and assignment to Fort Stewart, Georgia.  He was transferred to Fort Stewart where he remained until he was transferred to Hawaii on 4 September 1981, in the pay grade of E-4.

On 7 April 1982, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-3 and a forfeiture of pay.

The applicant was referred to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Rehabilitation Program (ADARP) on 13 April 1982, as a result of his alcohol and drug abuse.  On 17 May 1982, the applicant was declared a rehabilitation failure because he had not successfully curtailed his substance abuse and his duty performance was deemed to be below standards.

On 20 May 1982, NJP was again imposed against him for failure to go to his place of duty.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to the pay grade of E-2, a forfeiture of pay and extra duty.

On 9 June 1982, the applicant’s commander notified him that he was initiating action to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for alcohol and drug abuse rehabilitation failure.  He cited as the basis for his recommendation the applicant’s failure of the ADARP, substandard duty performance, his disciplinary record and failure to respond to extensive counseling sessions by his chain of command.

The applicant declined consultation with legal counsel and elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 21 June 1982 and directed that he be furnished with a General Discharge Certificate.

Accordingly, he was discharged under honorable conditions on 9 July 1982, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for alcohol or other drug abuse.  He had served 2 years, 8 months and 9 days of active service during his current enlistment. 

There is no indication in the available records to show that he ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within that board’s 15-year statute of limitations.

A review of the applicant’s records fails to show any indication that he was informed that his discharge would be upgraded 6 months after his discharge or that it was ever offered as a condition of his accepting the discharge.

Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 9 of that regulation contains the authority and outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol and/or drug abuse.  A member may be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, or successfully complete a rehabilitation program if there is a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts are no longer practical.  Characterization of service will be determined solely by the soldier’s military record that includes the soldier’s behavior and performance during the current enlistment.  An honorable discharge is a separation with honor and is appropriate when the quality of the soldier’s service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty.  A general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.  It is issued to soldiers whose military record is satisfactory but not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.  There are no automatic provisions, nor have there ever been, to automatically upgrade a discharge made under these provisions.

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 accordance with applicable regulations with no evidence of any violations of the applicant’s rights.  Accordingly, the characterization of his discharge appropriately characterizes his overall record of service. 

3.  The applicant’s contentions have been noted by the Board.  However, they are not supported by the evidence submitted with his application or the evidence of record.  There never have been nor are there now any provisions to automatically upgrade a discharge without application from the individual concerned.  Additionally, his discharge was not conditional on whether or not he agreed to be discharged under chapter 9.  The decision to approve and direct discharge rested strictly with the approval authority.

4.  The applicant had multiple incidents of misconduct involving alcohol abuse and the Board finds that such misconduct does not constitute fully honorable service, given the efforts by the chain of command to rehabilitate him and his failure to contribute to those efforts.

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

__mm___  ___rjw __  ___clg___  DENY APPLICATION

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

INDEX

CASE ID	AR2002076645	
SUFFIX		
RECON	YYYYMMDD	
DATE BOARDED	2003/02/04	
TYPE OF DISCHARGE	GD	
DATE OF DISCHARGE	1982/07/09	
DISCHARGE AUTHORITY	AR635-200, CH9	
DISCHARGE REASON	ALCOHOL REHAB FAILURE	
BOARD DECISION	DENY	
REVIEW AUTHORITY		
ISSUES         1.  680	144.6900/A69.00 ALCOHOL REHAB FAIL	
2.		
3.		
4.		
5.		
6.