IN THE CASE OF:  

		BOARD DATE:  8 May 2020

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20180014854


APPLICANT REQUESTS: his general, under honorable conditions discharge be 
changed to a medical discharge due to alcoholism.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record)
*	DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
*	Personal Statement

FACTS:

1.  The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, United 
States Code, section 1552(b); however, the ABCMR conducted a substantive review of 
this case and determined it is in the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to 
timely file.

2.  The applicant states, in effect, he was in the military when alcoholism was common 
and it wasn't treated as a disease.  It wasn't known until 1991, that alcoholism was a 
disease and could not be cured.  He was discharged from the military for being an 
alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure; however, he should have received a medical 
discharge.  He served for 24 months and does not remember being paid for his leave.   

3.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment on 7 April 1982, for disobeying a lawful order.

4.  A DA Form 2-2 (Insert to DA Form 2-1 Record of Court-Martial Conviction) shows 
the applicant was convicted by a Summary Court-Martial of wrongful possession of 
marijuana in hash form on or about 4 July 1982.  His punishment consisted of forfeiture 
of $368.00 for 1 month and 21 days of confinement to hard labor.

5.  On 18 March 1983, it was recommended the applicant be enrolled in a Track II 
program for alcohol or other drug related problems serious enough to warrant 
rehabilitation services.

6.  An Alcohol and Drug Control Officer provided a summary of the Alcohol and Drug 
Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) efforts in the applicant's case.

     a.  The applicant was recommended for The Residential Rehabilitation Facility; 
however, he did not want to attend.

     b.  Evidence indicated the applicant was continuing to abuse alcohol and other illicit 
drugs.  He failed to comply with treatment plans and goals.

     c.  Further rehabilitation efforts in a military environment were not justified in light of 
the applicant's lack of progress.    

     d.  In view of the applicant's failure to display significant progress toward 
rehabilitation, it is the considered opinion of the ADAPCP staff, in consultation with the 
other members of the applicant's rehabilitation team, it has exhausted its resources for 
achieving successful rehabilitation. It was recommended the applicant's commander 
declare him a rehabilitation failure and initiate discharge action.

7.  On 11 May 1983, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action 
to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel 
Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 9.  The commander stated his reason for the 
proposed discharge was his having been deemed an ADAPCP rehabilitation failure.  He 
advised the applicant he could receive an honorable or general, under honorable 
conditions, discharge.  The commander advised the applicant of his available rights.  

8.  On 11 May 1983, the applicant acknowledged he had been notified of the action 
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9.  He indicated he desired 
military legal counsel for consultation be appointed to assist him and he would submit 
statements in his own behalf for consideration.  The applicant submitted a statement in 
his own behalf in which he stated, in effect, he had made mistakes and desired to 
remain in the military.

9.  On 13 May 1993, an authorized official directed the applicant be discharged because 
of personal abuse of alcohol or other drugs and the impractically of further rehabilitation 
efforts.  He directed he receive a General Discharge Certificate.

10.  On 26 May 1983, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army 
Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, due to alcohol abuse-rehabilitation failure.  He 
completed 1 year, 9 months, and 7 days of net active service this period.  There is no 
evidence the applicant completed any other active duty service.

11.  The Army Review Board Agency (ARBA) Medical Advisor reviewed the supporting 
documents and the applicant’s military records.  The Armed Forces Health Longitudinal 
Technology Application (AHLTA), & Health Artifacts Image Management Solutions 
(HAIMS) were not in existence at the time of his service.   A review of VA’s Joint Legacy 
Viewer (JLV) indicates he has a service connected disability rating of 10% for tinnitus.  
Mr. Davis was evaluated by the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control 
Program (ADAPCP) on 23 Feb 1983.  He was found to abuse alcohol in addition to use 
of cannabis, opiates and amphetamines.  The applicant was enrolled in mandatory 
ADAPCP treatment on 18 Mar 1983.  Abstinence is a requirement for the duration of 
ADAPCP treatment.  On 22 Apr 1983, the rehabilitation team determined that his 
continued use of alcohol and other illicit drugs was in violation of ADAPCP requirements 
and as such the applicant was deemed to be a rehabilitation failure. The discharge 
chapter was appropriate and the narrative reason is consistent with a Chapter 9 
administrative separation.

12.  The applicant's medical records are not available for review and the available 
record is void of documentation nor does he provide evidence showing he was treated 
for an injury or an illness that warranted her entry into the Physical Disability Evaluation
System (PDES).  Additionally, there is no indication he was issued a permanent
physical profile or underwent a MEB or a physical evaluation board (PEB).

13.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the 
administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 9 contained the authority and 
outlined the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug 
abuse.  A member who had been referred to the ADAPCP for alcohol/drug abuse could 
be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or 
successfully complete such a program if there was 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.

14.  Army Regulation 635-40 (Disability Evaluation for Retention, Retirement, or 
Separation) establishes PDES and sets forth policies, responsibilities, and procedures 
that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical disability to 
reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating.  

BOARD DISCUSSION:

After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board found that relief 
was not warranted.  The Board carefully considered the applicants request, supporting 
documents, evidence in the records, a medical advisory opinion and published DoD 
guidance for liberal consideration of discharge upgrade requests.  The Board 
considered the applicant's statement, his record of service, the frequency and nature of 
his misconduct, and the reason for his separation.  The Board considered the medical 
records and conclusions of the advising official.  The Board concurred with the medical 
advisory opinion finding insufficient evidence of in-service mitigating factors to 
overcome the misconduct or to show that the applicant failed to meet medical retention 
standards.  The applicant provided no evidence of post-service achievements or letters 
of reference in support of a clemency determination.  Based on a preponderance of 
evidence, the Board determined that the narrative reason shown for the applicant upon 
separation was not in error or unjust.

BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:	:	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 the overall merits of this case are insufficient 
as a basis for correction of the records of the individual concerned.

		  
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.

REFERENCES:

1.  Title 10, United States 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 ABCMR to excuse an applicant's 
failure to timely file within the 3 year statute of limitations if the Army Board for 
Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) determines it would be in the interest of justice 
to do so.

2.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the 
administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  

	a.  Chapter 9 contained the authority and outlined the procedures for discharging 
individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse.  A member who had been referred 
to the ADAPCP for alcohol/drug abuse could be separated because of inability or 
refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there 
was 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.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7a provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with 
honor and entitles the recipient to benefits provided by law.  The honorable 
characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member’s service generally has 
met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, 
or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly 
inappropriate.

3.  Army Regulation 635-40 establishes PDES and sets forth policies, responsibilities, 
and procedures that apply in determining whether a Soldier is unfit because of physical 
disability to reasonably perform the duties of his office, grade, rank, or rating.  Only the 
unfitting conditions or defects and those which contribute to unfitness will be considered 
in arriving at the rated degree of incapacity warranting separation for disability.  
     a.  The disability system assessment process involves two distinct stages:  the 
Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and Physical Evaluation Board (PEB).  The purpose of 
the MEB is to determine whether the service member’s injury or illness is severe 
enough to compromise his or her ability to return to full duty based on the job specialty 
designation of the branch of service.  A PEB is an administrative body possessing the 
authority to determine whether or not a service member is fit for duty.  A designation of 
"unfit for duty" is required before an individual can be separated from the military 
because of an injury or medical condition.  Service members who are determined to be 
unfit for duty due to disability are either separated from the military or are permanently 
retired, depending on the severity of the disability and length of military service.  
Individuals who are "separated" receive a one-time severance payment, while veterans 
who retire based upon disability receive monthly military retirement payments and have 
access to all other benefits afforded to military retirees. 
     b.  The mere presence of a medical impairment does not in and of itself justify a 
finding of unfitness.  In each case, it is necessary to compare the nature and degree of 
physical disability present with the requirements of the duties the Soldier may 
reasonably be expected to perform because of his or her office, grade, rank, or rating.  
Reasonable performance of the preponderance of duties will invariably result in a 
finding of fitness for continued duty.  A Soldier is physically unfit when a medical 
impairment prevents reasonable performance of the duties required of the Soldier's 
office, grade, rank, or rating.
//NOTHING FOLLOWS//
ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	 AR20180014854


6

ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1