IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  17 November 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090008314 


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 upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states the Army never let him work in his military occupational specialty (MOS).  He was also told his discharge would be upgraded in 6 months.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation in support of his application.

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.  On 16 April 1974, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for 3 years and an assignment with the 82nd Airborne Division, Fort Bragg, NC.  On 22 April 1974, he waived his enlistment commitment.

3.  The applicant performed basic combat training at Fort Ord, CA.  Thereafter, he was transferred to Fort Sill, OK, where he completed training in MOS 15E as a Pershing Missile Crewman.  He was subsequently reassigned to Germany for assignment in his MOS.

4.  The applicant became an immediate disciplinary problem upon arrival in Germany.  On 12 November 1974, he received nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for urinating on a wall.  As punishment, he was given 7 days of restriction and extra duty.  On 7 January 1975, he received NJP for wrongfully appropriating 2 coats valued at $140.00 on 30 November 1974.  His punishment was to be reduced to private (PV1)/E-1, to forfeit $150.00 per month for 1 month, and to perform 45 days of extra duty.

5.  The applicant began abusing drugs and alcohol and was referred to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP).  He was admitted to a halfway house.  His DA Form 2985-2 R (Individual Patient Data System – Alcohol and Drug Abuse Control Program Intake Record) shows he used alcohol, heroin, barbiturates, amphetamines, hallucinogens, hashish, and marijuana.

6.  On 13 January 1975, his commander recommended he be barred from reenlistment.  The bar action was approved on 28 January 1975.

7.  The applicant’s administrative separation packet is not available for review; however, his DD Form 214 (Report of Separation from Active Duty) shows he was discharged under the expeditious discharge program in accordance with paragraph 5-37, Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel).  He was discharged on 28 January 1975 after just 9 months and
13 days of total active service.

8.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, provided for the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP).  This program provided for the discharge of individuals who had completed at least 6 months, but less than 36 months of active duty and who demonstrated by poor attitude, lack of motivation, lack of self-discipline, inability to adapt socially or emotionally, or failure to demonstrate promotion potential, and that they could not or would not meet acceptable standards.  Such personnel were issued a general or honorable discharge, as 

appropriate, except that a recommendation for a general discharge had to be initiated by the immediate commander and the individual had to consult with legal counsel.

9.  Soldiers who worked with Pershing Missiles required Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) certification.  The PRP is a program designed to ensure the highest possible standards of individual reliability in personnel performing duties associated with nuclear weapons systems and critical components.  Soldiers may be removed from PRP duties in one of three ways:  by suspension, by temporary decertification, or by permanent decertification.  Permanent decertification is appropriate when a Soldier is a confirmed drug abuser or diagnosed as alcohol dependent.

10.  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 was a drug and alcohol abuser.  He had more than 6 months, but less than 36 months of active service and he was discharged under the EDP.  His administrative discharge packet is not available for review; however, regularity is presumed in the discharge process.

2.  The applicant argues he was not allowed to work in his MOS.  The applicant was a Pershing Missile Crewman and, as such, he was subject to PRP certification.  Confirmed drug abusers and diagnosed alcoholics cannot be certified in the PRP.  Therefore, this means he could not be permitted to work in his MOS.

3.  The Army does not have nor has it ever had a policy that provides for the automatic upgrade of a discharge based on the passage of time.  A discharge may be upgraded by the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) within its
15-year statute of limitations or this Board if either determines the discharge was 
improper or inequitable.  A review of this case reveals no evidence that suggests there was any error or injustice related to the applicant's separation processing.  Therefore, it is concluded his discharge was proper and equitable and it accurately reflects the applicant's overall record of service.  As a result, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief in this case.
4.  In order to justify correction of a military record the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy the aforementioned requirement.

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)                                         AR20090008314



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090008314



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1