IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  27 January 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100019187 


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, correction of item 28 (Narrative Reason for Separation) of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to remove the entry "alcohol or other drug abuse."

2.  The applicant states he has been to treatment through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and completed courses.  He has also been through Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA) classes.  He has been sober for many years and would like his record to reflect that he received treatment at William Jennings Bryan Dorn VA Medical Center in Columbia, South Carolina, in 1987.

3.  The applicant did not provide any evidence.

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 on 11 May 1977 and held military occupational specialty 76D (Materiel Supply Specialist).  The highest rank/grade he attained during this period of service was private first class/E-3.

3.  On 2 May 1978, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for committing an assault against a sergeant.

4.  On 19 September 1978, he was convicted by a special court-martial of three specifications of committing an assault and one specification of communicating a threat.  The court sentenced him to confinement at hard labor for 4 months, a forfeiture of $175.00 pay per month for 4 months, and a reduction to the lowest enlisted grade.  The convening authority approved the sentence on 20 October 1978.

5.  On 23 April 1979, he was transported to the post hospital after an overdose.  He was investigated by military police officials after ingesting approximately 100 Tylenol tablets.

6.  On 11 June 1979, he was counseled by his immediate commander regarding possession of contraband in the company barracks.

7.  On 10 July 1979, a health and welfare inspection revealed marijuana residue in his personal effects.  He was counseled by his immediate commander and he indicated he used beer a couple of times a week and smoked marijuana approximately four times a month.

8.  On 3 August 1979, he was enrolled in the Army Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP).  His treatment plan included individual sessions with the main focus on drug-free living and effective military functioning.

9.  On 5 August 1979 subsequent to a drinking incident, the applicant was apprehended by military police for disobeying an order and striking a sergeant in the chest.

10.  His records show he accepted more NJP under the provisions of Article 15 of the UCMJ as follows:

* on 16 August 1979, for failing to obey an order to leave the Fort Lee Bicentennial Club and assaulting a sergeant
* on 21 November 1979, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty
* on 7 December 1979, for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty

11.  His records contain an ADAPCP participation and progress summary written by an Alcohol and Drug Control Officer that shows the applicant's 6-day follow up revealed an excellent conduct and efficiency rating.  However, on 11 October 1979, the applicant came to session smelling strongly of alcohol.  He admitted to drinking wine, but he refused to discuss the issue.  The officer also stated the applicant missed the next three sessions (22 October 1979 and 5 and 8 November 1979) with no explanation.  Additionally, on 13 November 1979, he showed up late to his scheduled appointment.  He maintained a noncommittal attitude throughout the session and he believed there was no area the ADAPCP could be of help to him.  Of all 14 scheduled individual sessions, he missed 5 sessions with no explanation.  It was agreed the applicant was a rehabilitation failure based on his inability to perform as a member of his unit and his drug abuse did not significantly improve in accordance with the acceptable standards of military behavior.

12.  On 7 December 1979, 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 for being frequently involved in discreditable incidents due to alcohol abuse despite his enrollment in the ADAPCP since 3 August 1979.  This involvement led to a deteriorating quality of work.

13.  On 7 December 1979, he acknowledged receipt of the commander's intent to separate him and was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation, 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 he understood that he may encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge under honorable conditions were issued to him.  He elected not to submit a statement on his own behalf.

14.  On 26 July 1983, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of ADAPCP rehabilitation failure and cited the applicant's alcohol-related incidents as follows:

* 
overdose on 23 April 1979
* enrollment in the ADAPCP
* letter of reprimand for possession of contraband on 11 June 1979 
* assault and disorderly conduct on 5 August 1979

15.  On 17 January 1980, consistent with recommendations by the applicant's chain of command and a legal sufficiency review, 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 an Honorable Discharge Certificate.  The applicant was accordingly discharged on 29 January 1980.

16.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued confirms he was discharged with a characterization of service of honorable by reason of alcohol or other drug abuse.  This form shows he completed a total of 2 years, 8 months, and 1 day of creditable military service.  Item 26 (Separation Code) of this form shows the entry "JPB."

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 Soldiers 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.  Initiation of separation proceedings is required for Soldiers designated as alcohol/drug rehabilitation failures.  The service of Soldiers discharged under this chapter will be characterized as honorable or general under honorable conditions unless the Soldier is in an entry-level status and an uncharacterized description of service is required.  However, an honorable discharge is required if limited-use information was used.

18.  Army Regulation 635-5-1 (Separation Program Designator (SPD) Codes) states SPD codes are three-character alphabetic combinations which identify reasons for and types of separation from active duty.  The regulation in effect at the time stated that SPD code "JPB" was the correct code for Soldiers separated under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of alcohol or other drug abuse.

19.  Army Regulation 635-5 prescribes the separation documents prepared for Soldiers upon retirement, discharge, or release from active military service or 

control of the Army.  It states the DD Form 214 is a synopsis of the Soldier’s most recent period of continuous active duty.  It provides a brief, clear-cut record of active Army service at the time of release from active duty, retirement or discharge.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant's record shows he was discharged on 29 January 1980 under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 by reason of alcohol or other drug abuse subsequent to an alcohol-related incident and ADAPCP rehabilitation failure.

2.  The applicant's narrative reason for separation was assigned based on his separation under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200 due to his alcohol or other drug abuse.  Absent the alcohol or other drug abuse and resulting rehabilitation failure, there was no fundamental reason to process him for discharge that would have been more favorable.  The underlying reason for his discharge was his alcohol or other drug abuse.  The only valid narrative reason for separation permitted under that paragraph is "alcohol or other drug abuse" which is correctly shown on his DD Form 214.  Therefore, he received the appropriate narrative reason for separation.

3.  The applicant's post-service completion of AA and NA classes is noted.  However, inasmuch as the applicant was discharged based on his alcohol or other drug abuse, the reason and authority for discharge are correct as currently shown on his DD Form 214.  In addition, the DD Form 214 is only intended to be a record of a member's service at the time of separation.  Therefore, he is not entitled to the requested 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 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)                                         AR20100019187



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100019187



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1