RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


      IN THE CASE OF:


      BOARD DATE:        11 September 2007
      DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20070004778


      I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record
of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in
the case of the above-named individual.

|     |Ms. Catherine C. Mitrano          |     |Director             |
|     |Mrs. Nancy L. Amos                |     |Analyst              |

      The following members, a quorum, were present:

|     |Mr. Larry C. Bergquist            |     |Chairperson          |
|     |Ms. Marla J. Troup                |     |Member               |
|     |Ms. Ernestine I. Fields           |     |Member               |

      The Board considered the following evidence:

      Exhibit A - Application for correction of military records.

      Exhibit B - Military Personnel Records (including advisory opinion,
if any).

THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE:

1.  The applicant requests that his general discharge under honorable
conditions be upgraded to fully honorable.

2.  The applicant states he did not have an alcohol abuse problem.

3.  The applicant provides his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or
Discharge from Active Duty).

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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 14 April 1980.  He
completed basic training and advanced individual training and was awarded
military occupational specialty 11B (Infantryman).  On 29 December 1982, he
was honorably discharged and immediately reenlisted on 30 December 1982.

3.  On 13 July 1983, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP)
under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failing to go
to his appointed place of duty.

4.  On 29 July 1983, the applicant was enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug
Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP).  On 5 July 1984, he
satisfactorily completed the program.

5.  On 9 September 1986, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ
for being disrespectful in language towards his superior noncommissioned
officer.

6.  On 5 August 1987, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for
four specifications of failing to go to his appointed place of duty.
7.  On 19 November 1987, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ
for being disrespectful in language towards his superior noncommissioned
officer.

8.  On 27 May 1988, the applicant accepted NJP under Article 15, UCMJ for
operating a vehicle while drunk.

9.  In an Assessment Summary, dated 6 June 1988, the Clinical Director,
ADAPCP noted that the applicant was initially command referred/screened in
August 1987 as a result of alleged alcohol-related absences.  He was
subsequently referred/enrolled in ADAPCP [on 29 January 1988] as a result
of falling off a wall in an intoxicated state and being admitted to the
hospital.  During enrollment, he appeared to maintain abstinence while
taking antabuse; however, he discontinued treatment.  His continued
enrollment was impractical considering his attitude.  He continued to
maintain strong denial in regards to his relationship with alcohol and had
not maintained abstinence as required.  He was released from ADAPCP on 2
June 1988 as a rehabilitation failure.

10.  On 21 June 1988, the applicant's commander notified the applicant he
  was initiating action to separate him under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for alcohol abuse - rehabilitation failure
based on the applicant’s recurring alcohol-related problems and his
inability to rehabilitate.

11.  On 22 June 1988, the applicant was advised by counsel of the basis for
the contemplated separation action.  The applicant waived consideration of
his case by an administrative separation board and waived appearance before
such a board.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

12.  On 27 June 1988, the applicant’s commander formally recommended he be
separated under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for
alcohol rehabilitation failure.  He noted the applicant was placed into the
ADAPCP on 29 January 1988 after several incidents where his duty
performance was affected due to alcohol-related problems.  He initially did
well in the program; however, after a short period of time he started
drinking again and was apprehended for driving under the influence of
alcohol.

13.  On 27 June 1988, the applicant completed a separation physical and was
found qualified for separation.

14.  On 28 June 1988, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation.
He had been referred for an evaluation regarding discharge proceedings
under Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9.  He was diagnosed with continuous
alcohol abuse.  He was found to have mental health clearance for whatever
action deemed as appropriate by his command.

15.  On 29 June 1988, the appropriate authority approved the separation
recommendation and directed the applicant’s service be characterized as
under honorable conditions.

16.  On 12 July 1988, the applicant was discharged, in pay grade E-1, with
a general discharge under honorable conditions under the provisions of Army
Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for alcohol abuse - rehabilitation failure.
He had completed 8 years, 2 months, and 29 days of creditable active
service with no lost time.

17.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the
separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 9 provides for the discharge of
members based on alcohol or other drug abuse such as the illegal, wrongful,
or improper use of any controlled substance, alcohol, or other drug when
the Soldier is enrolled in the ADAPCP and the commander, in consultation
with the rehabilitation team, determines that further rehabilitation
efforts are not practical, rendering the Soldier a rehabilitative failure.
The service of Soldiers discharged under this regulatory provision will be
characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

18.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant was referred to ADAPCP
on three occasions.  He had one Article 15 for driving while drunk and his
separation packet indicated that several of his other Article 15s were
imposed due to alcohol-related problems.

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in
compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural
errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  He has failed to show
that he was improperly discharged due to alcohol abuse - rehabilitation
failure.  Considering his numerous instances of misconduct, upgrading his
discharge to fully honorable does not appear to be warranted.
BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

__lcb___  __mjt___  __eif___  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.




                                  __Larry C. Bergquist__
                                            CHAIRPERSON



                                    INDEX

|CASE ID                 |AR20070004778                           |
|SUFFIX                  |                                        |
|RECON                   |                                        |
|DATE BOARDED            |20070911                                |
|TYPE OF DISCHARGE       |GD                                      |
|DATE OF DISCHARGE       |19880712                                |
|DISCHARGE AUTHORITY     |AR 635-200, ch 9                        |
|DISCHARGE REASON        |A69.00                                  |
|BOARD DECISION          |DENY                                    |
|REVIEW AUTHORITY        |Ms. Mitrano                             |
|ISSUES         1.       |110.00                                  |
|2.                      |                                        |
|3.                      |                                        |
|4.                      |                                        |
|5.                      |                                        |
|6.                      |                                        |


-----------------------
[pic]