IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  30 March 2010

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20090014944 


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 he is deeply sorry for his actions and that he wants to further his education.

3.  The applicant provides no documentary evidence 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.  The applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 December 1983 for a period of 4 years.  He successfully completed basic combat and advanced individual 

training in military occupational specialty (MOS) 63B (light wheel vehicle mechanic).

3.  On 22 December 1986, the applicant was enrolled in Track I of the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) for alcohol-related incidents.

4.  On 6 May 1987, a bar to reenlistment was imposed against the applicant.

5.  On 19 August 1987, nonjudicial punishment was imposed against the applicant for using marijuana.  His punishment consisted of a reduction to private first class (PFC)/E-3 (suspended), a forfeiture of pay (suspended), and extra duty and restriction.

6.  He was enrolled in Track II of the ADAPCP on 6 April 1987.

7.  On 1 July 1987, the applicant was apprehended for possession of a controlled substance and he submitted a positive urinalysis.

8.  On 7 July 1987, the applicant’s unit commander, in consultation with the ADAPCP Clinical Director, declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure.  This failure was evidenced by his lack of motivation to follow through with treatment objectives, refusal to participate in rehabilitation, and multiple absenteeism from duty assignments.  His potential for rehabilitation within the Army milieu was seen to be minimal.

9.  On 22 July 1987, the applicant was notified of his pending separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug and alcohol rehabilitation failure.

10.  On 23 July 1987, the applicant consulted with counsel and acknowledged that he might expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions were issued to him.  He also elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

11.  On 11 August 1987, the separation authority approved the recommendation for discharge and directed that the applicant be furnished a general, under honorable conditions discharge.

12.  Accordingly, the applicant was discharged with a general, under honorable conditions discharge on 26 August 1987 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug abuse rehabilitation failure.  He had served 3 years, 8 months, and 21 days of creditable active service.
13.  There is no evidence that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

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 a general, under honorable conditions 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.  A discharge is not upgraded for the purpose of obtaining education or other veteran's benefits.

2.  The applicant's record of service included a bar to reenlistment, one nonjudicial punishment, and his failure to complete the ADAPCP.  As a result, his service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

3.  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 was issued to him.
   
4.  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

____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)                                         AR20090014944



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20090014944



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1