BOARD DATE:	  3 November 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090009999 


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, upgrade of his general, under honorable conditions discharge to a fully honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant did not make any statement.

3.  The applicant provides a copy of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty), dated 30 March 1987, in support of his request.

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's records show he enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) for a period of 3 years on 6 August 1985.  He completed basic combat and advanced individual training and he was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 91A (Medical Specialist).  The highest rank/grade he attained during his military service was private first class (PFC)/E-3.

3.  The applicant's records also show he served in Germany from on or about 7 January 1986 to on or about 6 October 1988 and he was awarded the Army Service Ribbon, Marksman Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Rifle Bar
(M-16), and the Expert Marksmanship Qualification Badge with Grenade Bar.

4.  On 4 November 1986, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty on or about
27 October 1986 and being incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties as a result of wrongfully indulging in intoxicating liquor or drugs on or about 27 October 1986.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to private (PV2)/E-2 (suspended until 4 May 1987), a forfeiture of $167.00 pay for one month (suspended until 4 May 1987), and 7 days of Correctional Custody (suspended until 4 May 1987).  

5.  On 4 March 1987, the clinical director of the Community Counseling Center, Gelnhausen, Germany, issued a synopsis of the applicant's Army Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) activities.  The director stated that the applicant was initially enrolled in ADAPCP on 16 December 1983 as a result of alcohol-related incidents and self-referral, before being command-referred.  He was enrolled in Track II rehabilitation and participated in three group sessions before admission into Track III on 23 January 2007.  He was returned from the Landstuhl Rehabilitation Treatment Facility (RTF) on 11 February 1987 as a result of lack of motivation and sincerity for rehabilitation.  He was informed prior to entering the RTF that this effort was the last chance he would have to change his behavior.  His potential for successful rehabilitation was therefore considered to be poor and the ADAPCP recommendation was to separate the applicant.

6.  On 12 March 1987, the applicant’s immediate commander notified the applicant of his intent to initiate separation action against him in accordance with chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) for ADAPCP failure.  The immediate commander cited the specific reasons for this action as the applicant's inability and refusal to participate and successfully complete the ADAPCP for alcohol and drug abuse. 


7.  On 12 March 1987, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the commander's intent to separate him and he was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation for ADAPCP failure, the type of discharge he could receive and its effect on further enlistment or reenlistment, the possible effects of this discharge, and of the procedures/rights that were available to him.  He further indicated that he understood that he may encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions was issued to him and elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.

8.  On 17 March 1987, the applicant’s immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of ADAPCP rehabilitation failure.

9.  On 19 March 1987, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 and directed the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was accordingly discharged on 30 March 1987.  The DD Form 214 he was issued confirms he was discharged with a characterization of service of general, under honorable conditions.  This form further confirms he completed a total of 1 year, 7 months, and 25 days of creditable military service.

10.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

11.  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 Soldiers 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.  Nothing in this chapter prevents separation of a Soldier who has been referred to such a program under any other provisions of this regulation.  Initiation of separation proceedings is required for Soldiers designated as alcohol/drug rehabilitation failures (emphasis added).  The service of Soldiers discharged under this chapter will be characterized as honorable or general under honorable conditions unless the Soldier is in entry-level status and an uncharacterized description of service is required.

12.  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 contends that his discharge should be upgraded.

2.  The evidence of record shows that the applicant suffered from an alcohol abuse problem.  He was provided with multiple opportunities to overcome his problem including counseling and referral to and enrollment in the ADAPCP subsequent to an alcohol-related incident.  However, he showed poor rehabilitation potential.  He was therefore declared an ADAPCP rehabilitation failure.  Accordingly, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  There does not seem to be an error or an injustice in his discharge.

3.  Based on his record of ADAPCP failure, alcohol-related incidents, and one instance of Article 15, the applicant's service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct also renders his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, the applicant's service does not warrant an honorable discharge.

4.  In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust.  The applicant did not submit evidence that would satisfy that requirement.  Therefore, the applicant is not entitled to relief.

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)                                         AR20090009999



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090009999



5


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1