IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: 2 August 2011 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20100029966 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 that his general discharge (GD) be upgraded. 2. The applicant states he received a letter three months after his discharge stating his urine analysis was done incorrectly. He hopes the letter is included in his military record. 3. The applicant provides no 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 served on active duty in the Regular Army from 2 March 1981 through 9 December 1983. 3. The applicant received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) as follows on: a. 14 April 1981, for fighting with a fellow Soldier; b. 1 September 1983, for illegal use of marijuana; and c. 6 October 1983, for failure to go to his appointed place of duty. 4. On 1 November 1983, the applicant was referred to the Fort Lewis Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) based on a command directed screening on 18 August 1983. 5. The applicant submitted an undated statement wherein he stated he would not comply with the Track II ADAPCP he was enrolled in. 6. On 7 November 1983, separation proceedings were initiated for failure or an inability to comply with prescribed treatment plans and goals for drug rehabilitation efforts. 7. On 30 November 1983, the applicant acknowledged the proposed separation proceedings under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9 and waived his right to counsel. 8. The separation authority approved the separation and directed the applicant receive a GD. 9. The applicant was discharged on 9 December 1983 with a GD. He had 2 years, 9 months, and 7 days of creditable service with no lost time. His DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) lists his awards as the Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon, and Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar. 10. The available record does not contain any evidence of an improper urine analysis-. 11. 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 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. 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 entry-level status and an uncharacterized description of service is required. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: 1. The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. 2. The record does not contain and the applicant has not provided any evidence to show that the urine analysis was improperly conducted or evaluated. 3. Therefore, there is insufficient evidence to warrant an upgrade of the applicant's discharge 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) AR20100029966 3 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1 ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont) AR20100029966 2 ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS 1