IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	        9 September 2008 

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20080010741 


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 be upgraded to honorable.

2.  The applicant states that he completed a four-month rehabilitation program on 2 April 2007.

3.  The applicant provides a completion certificate and a copy of 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 on 30 May 1989 for a period of 4 years.  He successfully completed basic combat training and advanced individual training in military occupational specialty 91A (medical specialist).
3.  On 23 May 1990, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for failure to be at his appointed place of duty.  His punishment consisted of extra duty.

4.  The applicant was enrolled in Track ll of the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) on 7 June 1990 for an alcohol related incident.  This was the applicant’s second referral within a 6-week time period.    

5.  On 10 August 1990, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for failure to go (four specifications) and being incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to 
E-1, a forfeiture of pay, and extra duty.

6.  On 26 February 1991, the ADAPCP Clinical Director reported that the applicant had participated in 3 sessions, that he had been scheduled for 
22 individual and/or group appointments which he did not attend, that he had 
2 alcohol-related incidents (July 1990 and January 1991), and that his potential for successful rehabilitation was poor. 

7.  On 4 March 1991, the applicant’s unit commander, in consultation with the ADAPCP Clinical Director, declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure.

8.  The applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for alcohol rehabilitation failure.    

9.  On 22 March 1991, the applicant consulted with counsel, waived his rights, and acknowledged that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions were issued.  He also elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf.    

10.  On 26 March 1991, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that the applicant be furnished a general discharge.     

11.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with a general discharge on 
3 April 1991 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for alcohol rehabilitation failure.  He had served 1 year, 10 months, and 4 days of creditable active service.

12.  In support of his claim, the applicant provided a completion certificate which shows he completed an intensive outpatient program on 2 April 2007. 

13.  On 10 August 1995, the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) denied the applicant’s request for an honorable discharge.  The ADRB determined that the reason for his discharge should be changed to Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure instead of Alcohol Abuse – Rehabilitation Failure.   

14.  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 individuals 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.  At the time of the applicant's separation an honorable or general discharge was authorized. 

15.  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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.    
 
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's record of service included two nonjudicial punishments and he failed to complete ADAPCP.  As a result, his service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  The applicant's current clean and sober life is commendable but not sufficient to warrant an honorable discharge.

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.  The applicant acknowledged that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general under honorable conditions discharge were issued.  
   
3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.






BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

___xx___  __xx____  ___xx___  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.



      _______xxxx___________
               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)                                         AR20080010741



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20080010741



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1