BOARD DATE:	  29 October 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090008430 


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, in effect, reconsideration of his earlier petition to upgrade his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) to a fully honorable discharge (HD).

2.  The applicant states, in effect, that no rehabilitation to any substantial degree was ever provided.  

3.  The applicant provides a self-authored statement, seven character references, a newspaper article, two notes of appreciation, and a certificate of appreciation in support of his application.

CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE:

1.  Incorporated herein by reference are military records which were summarized in the previous consideration of the applicant's case by the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) in Docket Number AC96-06447, on 16 April 1997.

2.  During its original deliberations in this case, the Board determined the applicant’s discharge was proper and equitable, and that the applicant failed to satisfactorily demonstrate by competent evidence that it would be in the interest of justice to grant the relief requested.


3.  The applicant provides a new argument that he did not receive any rehabilitation to any substantial degree prior to his discharge.  He also provides new supporting documents which were not previously reviewed by the ABCMR; therefore, it is considered new evidence and as such warrants consideration by the Board.

4.  The applicant’s military record shows that after having prior honorable active duty service during the period 1 September 1972 through 25 August 1975, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 24 June 1976.  He was trained in, awarded, and served in military occupational specialty (MOS) 51N (Water Treatment Specialist).

5.  Item 18 (Appointments and Reductions) of his DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows he was promoted to the rank/grade of sergeant (SGT)/E-5 on 14 August 1977 and that this was the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty.  His record also shows he was twice reduced to specialist four (SP4)/E-4 and that he held that grade on the date of his discharge. 

6.  Item 31 (Foreign Service) of the applicant’s DA Form 2-1 shows he completed three foreign service tours in Germany and one in Korea.  Item 41 (Awards and Decorations) shows that during his active duty tenure, he earned the National Defense Service Medal, Army Achievement Medal, Army Good Conduct Medal (4th Award), Army Service Ribbon, Overseas Service Ribbon (4th Award), Parachutist Badge, and the Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar.

7.  The applicant’s record reveals a disciplinary history that includes his acceptance of non-judicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on the following five separate occasions for the offenses indicated:   31 December 1974, for disobeying a lawful order given by his first sergeant; 21 April 1975, for being drunk and disorderly and for assault; 5 October 1978, for being found drunk while on duty as the Charge of Quarters (CQ); 9 August 1979, for being derelict in the performance of his duties by being found asleep while performing his duties as the CQ; and
31 March 1981, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty.

8.  On 25 September 1986, the applicant was notified that a Department of the Army selection board determined that he should be barred from reenlistment under the Qualitative Management Program (QMP).  Two substandard Noncommissioned Officer Evaluation Reports (NCOERs) and his record of five NJP actions formed the basis for the board determination.  

9.  On 18 November 1986, the applicant was enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP)-TRAC II as a result of a military police (MP) report of alcohol abuse involving a domestic disturbance.  On 
10 December 1986, a case of spouse abuse was opened by the Family Advocacy Case Management Team (FACMT) as a result of the MP blotter indicating the applicant slapped his wife in the face.  

10.  On 9 March 1987, the ADAPCP, Clinical Director indicated that the applicant had participated in 12 hours of awareness education, 6 group counseling sessions, 2 individual counseling sessions, a medical evaluation for antabuse, and that he agreed to self-administer antabuse.  The Clinical Director further indicated the applicant had failed to show for individual, group, and rehabilitation team meeting sessions since 14 January 1987, despite continued command consults.  On 7 March 1987, the applicant was charged with driving while intoxicated (DWI) and subsequently determined an ADAPCP rehabilitation failure.

11.  The unit commander notified the applicant that he was initiating separation action on him under the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200, based on his enrollment in TRAC II of the ADAPCP and subsequent rehabilitation failure in that program, the MP identification of his alcohol abuse resulting in a domestic disturbance, and a DWI charge.  The applicant was advised of his rights and that legal counsel would be available to him upon his request.  The applicant completed a statement indicating he desired medical treatment at a Veterans Administration Medical Center and he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf. 

12.  On 13 April 1987, the separation authority approved the separation action and directed the applicant receive a GD.  On 8 May 1987, the applicant was discharged accordingly. 

13.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) issued to the applicant on the date of his discharge confirms he was discharged under the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of Alcohol Abuse - Rehabilitation Failure after completing a total of 13 years, 10 months, and 10 days of active military service.

14.  There is no indication in his record that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within the ADRB's 15-year statute of limitations. 


15.  The applicant provides seven character reference statements from individuals who support his request for an upgrade of his GD to an HD and indicate he is devoted to leadership, education, and service; that he is a man of integrity and beyond reproach; and that he is a good husband, family man, and role model.  Two of the character reference statements also agree with the applicant that he did not receive sufficient alcohol abuse rehabilitation from the Army.

16.  The applicant provides a newpaper article that shows that an Army Major General (MG) recognized and honored the applicant at a ceremony for returning his wallet to him.  The MG stated that the fact that the applicant returned his wallet with all of his money inside said a lot about the applicant's character and integrity.  The applicant also provides honorary notes in recognition of his outstanding work in the Army's Birthday Ball (2004) and a Certificate of Appreciation for his performance of duty during the Hurricane Isabel crisis.

17.  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 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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's request for reconsideration for upgrade of his GD to an HD because he was denied sufficient rehabilitation efforts was carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.

2.  The evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was enrolled in the ADAPCP from 18 November 1986 through at least 7 March 1987, and that during that time he participated in twelve hours of awareness education, six group counseling sessions, two individual counseling sessions, a medical evaluation for antabuse, and he agreed to self-administer antabuse.  It also shows that the applicant failed to show for further rehabilitation efforts beginning on 14 January 1987, and that he was charged with DWI on 7 March 1987, which subsequently led to his being declared an ADAPCP rehabilitation failure.  Therefore, the applicant was afforded ample opportunities to rehabilitate; however, through his own actions, he rejected the rehabilitation efforts and failed to continue participating in and completing the ADAPCP.

3.  The applicant's post-service conduct is noteworthy, as evidenced by the supporting letters provided.  However, this alone is not sufficiently mitigating to support an upgrade of his discharge.  The applicant's record of misconduct, as evidenced by his NJP record and his failure to take advantage of the ADAPCP rehabilitation opportunity presented him diminish the overall quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge. 

4.  The record confirms the applicant’s separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All requirements of law and regulations were met, and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  Further, the applicant’s discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service.  

5.  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 this 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 to amend the decision of the ABCMR set forth in Docket Number AC96-06447, dated 16 April 1997.



      _________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)                                         AR20090008430



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090008430



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1