BOARD DATE:	  15 December 2009

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090012278 


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 1983 General Discharge be upgraded to fully honorable.

2.  The applicant states he spent 6 years of his life serving his county and never questioned his duty.  He notes he always performed to the best of his abilities and was awarded two Army Good Conduct Medals and selected for the Berlin Brigade Honor Guard.  The applicant notes he developed a drinking problem but feels he still deserves what he worked for during his 6 years of service.  He states it would be only fair to clear his good name and have his record upgraded.  He states he wants to be remembered for what good he did for his country and not be labeled for the few mistakes he made while under the influence of alcohol.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence 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.  Records available to the Board indicate the applicant enlisted and entered active duty as a Regular Army Soldier on 31 May 1977.  He successfully completed training and in October 1977 he was assigned to the 6th Infantry, part of the Berlin Brigade in Berlin, Germany.  By November 1979 he had been promoted to pay grade E-4.  In May 1980 he was awarded the Army Good Conduct Medal.

3.  In June 1980 the applicant reenlisted and on 5 September 1980 was punished under Article 15 of the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) for being drunk and disorderly.

4.  In September 1980 the applicant departed Berlin.  While undergoing training as a Materiel Control and Accounting Specialist, the applicant was punished a second time under Article 15 of the UCMJ, this time for larceny.  As a result of this UCMJ action the applicant was reduced to pay grade E-3.

5.  Following completion of training, the applicant was assigned Fort Bragg, North Carolina.

6.  In May 1981 he was punished under Article 15 of the UCMJ for being absent from duty and in June 1981 he was enrolled in the Army’s Drug and Alcohol Program.  Notwithstanding his enrollment in the Drug and Alcohol Program, in December 1981 he was promoted to pay grade E-4.  However, in December 1981 he was punished under Article 15 of the UCMJ for disobeying a lawful order and reduced to pay grade E-3.  In February 1982 he was barred from reenlisting.

7.  In February 1983 the applicant’s unit commander notified him (the applicant) that he was recommending administrative discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9, based on his rehabilitation failure in the Drug and Alcohol Program.  The unit commander noted that since the applicant’s enrollment in the program in June 1981 he had been counseled at least 43 times regarding his alcohol abuse.  

8.  On 9 March 1983 the applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed separation and waived his attendant rights.  On 15 March 1983 the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge and directed that his service be characterized as under honorable conditions (general).

9.  The applicant was discharged under honorable conditions on 23 March 1983 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, Chapter 9 (alcohol abuse – rehabilitation failure).

10.  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 an ADAPC Program 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.  The regulation provided for issuance of an honorable or general discharge.

11.  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.

12.  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.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant was enrolled in the Army’s Drug and Alcohol Program for almost two years and was ultimately determined to be a rehabilitative failure.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.

2.  The fact that the applicant may have been awarded an Army Good Conduct Medal and served to the best of his ability is not sufficiently mitigating to excuse his abuse of alcohol of the resulting incidents of misconduct.  He has provided no evidence which would serve as a basis to excuse his behavior in view of the fact that the Army attempted to provide the applicant with help via the treatment program.



3.  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.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

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)                                         AR20090012278





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090012278



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1