APPLICANT REQUESTS: Reconsideration of his previous request to correct his records by upgrading his discharge.
APPLICANT STATES: In effect, that alcoholism impaired his ability to make reasonable decisions and judgments and that he was never given the chance to be rehabilitated. The failure to timely file should have been waived for the same reason.
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION: Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum of consideration (MOC) prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 17 May 1995 (COPY ATTACHED).
The contention that he was impaired due to his alcohol addiction and was never offered rehabilitation constitutes new argument. The applicant submits his own statements in a letter in support of his request.
Evidence of record shows that the applicant was transferred on numerous occasions as a method of rehabilitation subsequent to counseling wherein the applicant expressed remorse for his disciplinary actions and accepted the transfer as rehabilitation. The commanders recommendation of discharge for unfitness under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-208 was ultimately based on the applicants frequent involvement in incidents of a discreditable nature with military or civilian authorities.
The Manual for Courts-Martial, as then in effect, and the edition currently effective, both state that voluntary intoxication not amounting to legal insanity, whether caused by alcohol or drugs, is not an excuse for an offense committed while in that condition.
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. There is no evidence of record that the applicant was so impaired by alcohol problems that he could not both tell right from wrong and adhere to the right, or that the discharge resulted from diminished capacity due to alcohol. The applicant was discharged for his misconduct and alcoholism is not normally accepted as a defense. An indication that intoxication is a legally inadequate defense, both in the military and in society as a whole, is demonstrated by the fact that drunk drivers are normally held legally responsible for the results of their behavior even though they are shown to be alcoholic.
2. Evidence of record shows that the applicant served without incident for 15 months before he received an Article 15 for being drunk and disorderly, thereby demonstrating his capability for honorable service. Counseling records reveal the applicant accepted company transfers by his commander as a method of rehabilitation for his unacceptable behavior.
3. Furthermore, the applicant offered no evidence to substantiate his implied claim that he was so incapacitated by alcohol that he could not tell right from wrong, nor does he offer any evidence to support the conclusion that he would have accepted and successfully completed treatment had it been offered, or, for that matter, that he is in recovery at the time of the application.
4. Prior to reaching the determination that it was not in the interest of justice to excuse the failure to timely file, the Board looked at the entire file. It was only after all other aspects had been considered and it had been concluded that there was no basis to recommend a correction of the records that the Board considered the statute of limitations. Had the Board determined that an error or injustice existed it undoubtedly would have recommended relief in spite of the failure to submit the application within the 3 year time limit. The Board has never denied an application simply because it was not submitted within the required time.
5. The overall merits of the case, including the latest submissions and arguments are insufficient as a basis for the Board to reverse its previous decision.
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
____x____ ___x_____ ____x____ DENY APPLICATION
Loren G. Harrell
Director
AF | BCMR | CY2003 | BC-2002-03956
The applicant appealed his punishment to the Numbered Air Force Commander. Involuntary intoxication can be a defense to drunk driving only if the applicant did not voluntarily ingest alcohol and his mental state rises to the level of legal insanity. Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented to demonstrate the existence of either an error or injustice warranting favorable action on the applicant’s request for setting aside the nonjudicial punishment imposed upon him under the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2011 | 20110003475
On 23 January 1984, the applicant's company commander advised the applicant that he was initiating action for his discharge pursuant to the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) for his continued drug and alcohol abuse and lack of response to rehabilitation services. On 23 January 1984, the applicant's company commander recommended the applicant be separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9 with a general...
ARMY | BCMR | CY1990-1993 | 9107175
NEW EVIDENCE OR INFORMATION : Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in a memorandum of consideration (MOC) prepared to reflect the Board's original consideration of his case on 12 August 1992 (COPY ATTACHED).The contention that he was impaired due to alcoholism when he returned from Vietnam and that he was not himself constitutes new argument. There is no evidence of record that the applicant was impaired by alcohol and that he could not both tell right...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2008 | 20080002364
The applicant states, in effect, that he was accepted for induction by the Army who had full knowledge that he had a problem with alcohol. It appears that he was not provided counseling or treatment for his alcoholism while he was in the Army largely because he did not recognize he was an alcoholic and he did not know enough about alcoholism to ask for help. As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by upgrading the...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140011246
* the GOMOR and AER record the misconduct which occurred as well as the command actions taken to address that misconduct * the GOMOR is an administrative measure with its own due process; comparisons to civilian legal practices might instruct but would lack relevance * by placing it in the applicant's permanent OMPF the imposing officer clearly felt the applicant's misconduct warranted the ability of future reviewers, evaluating him for possible favorable personnel actions, to know what...
USMC | DRB | 2006_Marine | MD0600290
MD06-00290 Applicant’s Request The application for discharge review was received on 20051130. I was a serious alcohol abuser, on my way to alcoholism, but, I was not there yet. He says most of the time he does consume his alcohol with people but sometimes he does drink alone.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2010 | 20100009636
The actual helmet was severely damaged and the chin strap was torn; c. she was told by hospital personnel that the FSM would not have survived the accident if he had not been wearing a helmet; d. the toxicology report finding differs from the reported blood alcohol content (BAC) level on the LOD and the method of determining the alcohol level did not meet the Texas legal standards for a finding of DWI; e. a formal LOD was not required and she did not receive a copy of the LOD until over a...
NAVY | DRB | 1999_Navy | ND99-00382
950216: BUPERS directed the applicant's discharge by reason of alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure with a characterization of service as type warranted by service record. Determination: discharge proper and equitable; relief not warranted. The applicant had two retention warnings for alcohol related incidents after completion of Level II alcohol treatment.
AF | DRB | CY2003 | FD2002-0310
Attachment: Examiner's Brief FD2002-0310 DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE AIR FORCE DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD ANDREWS AFB, MD _— a. Basis for Discharge: Respondent has received three Article 15s, all of them alcohol-related. Discharge is appropriate.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2014 | 20140000211
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 3 October 1988, his company commander notified him he was initiating action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 14-12b, based on his lengthy record of misconduct. The unit commander must insure that an appropriate mental status evaluation is obtained for Soldiers recommended for separation under this chapter.