IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  15 March 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100022156 


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 discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states his character of discharge is inequitable and not consistent with the policies and traditions of the U.S. Army.  He adds that all his disciplinary problems arose as a direct result of his continuous abuse of alcohol and other mind-altering drugs.  He further states he became addicted to alcohol and other drugs after entering the Army and advised his superiors of his problem.  He continues by stating that because the Army did not treat him for his addiction his improper conduct was allowed to continue while it could have been controlled with proper treatment.

3.  The applicant provides a letter from the Veterans Coordinator with "People in Progress."

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 8 July 1981.  He completed initial entry training and he was awarded military occupational specialty 72G (data communications switching center specialist).  The highest rank/grade he held was private (PV2)/E-2.

3.  His records show he accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice on two occasions (16 March 1982 and 10 August 1982) for:

* on two occasions causing a breach of peace by wrongfully engaging in a fight
* without authority going from his appointed place of duty
* unlawfully striking a Soldier in the chest with his closed fist
* unlawfully striking another Soldier in the face with his closed fist
* willfully damaging by pulling out of the wall telephone wires, the property of the U.S. Government
* being drunk and disorderly at the military police station
* willfully disobeying a lawful order from his superior noncommissioned officer

4.  On 22 September 1982, his commander informed him that he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 5-31 under the Expeditious Discharge Program (EDP)).  The reasons stated for the proposed action were that the applicant had demonstrated an inability to adequately conform, both socially and emotionally, to the stress of military life.  He was further informed that his inability to accept instructions; substandard duty performance; poor attitude; and his lack of respect for authority, motivation, and self-discipline warranted his immediate elimination.  It was further stated that attempts at rehabilitation through extensive counseling by the entire chain-of-command were met in the negative.

5.  On 23 September 1982, the applicant acknowledged notification of his proposed separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31.  He elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.  He 


further acknowledged he understood that if his service was characterized as under honorable conditions, he may expect to encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life.  He further acknowledged that he had been provided the opportunity to consult with an officer of the Judge Advocate General's Corps.

6.  On 24 September 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31 and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

7.  On 5 October 1982, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 he was issued at that time shows he completed 1 year, 2 months, and 28 days of creditable active service.

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

9.  A letter from a Veteran's Coordinator with the People in Progress (a program creating self-reliance – building addiction-free lives) indicates he entered a program in April 2010, has been cooperative, and all random tests for substance abuse were negative.  He adds that the applicant is now in the After-Care Phase of their treatment program.

10.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 5-31, in effect at the time, provides that members who have demonstrated that they cannot or will not meet acceptable standards required of enlisted personnel in the Army because of existence of one or more of the following conditions may be separated when they have failed to respond to counseling.  The purpose of this policy was to provide for the expeditious elimination of substandard, nonproductive Soldiers before board or punitive action became necessary.  These provisions were intended to relieve unit commanders of the administrative burden normally associated with processing eliminations for cause through administrative separation boards by providing a means to separate such personnel expeditiously before they progress to the point where board or punitive action became necessary.  Individual characteristics that would assist in identifying members who should not be retained in the Army included, but were not limited to the following:

* hostility toward the Army
* inability to accept instructions or directions
* clearly substandard performance
* evidence of social/emotional maladjustment
* lack of cooperation with peers or superiors

11.  Members separated under the EDP could be awarded a character of service of honorable or under honorable conditions, as appropriate.

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 or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  There is no evidence in his record and he has not submitted any substantive evidence showing he had been diagnosed with addiction to alcohol and/or other drugs or that he was being treated for an alcohol/drug dependence problem prior to or since his discharge with the exception of the letter indicating treatment nearly 30 years after his discharge.  He provided no explanation as to how his alleged alcohol/drug dependence while in the Army excuses or justifies his behavior.

2.  He received nonjudicial punishment on two occasions for multiple offenses, including a breach of peace by wrongfully engaging in a fight, unlawfully striking two Soldiers with his closed fist, willfully damaging the property of the U.S. Government, and willfully disobeying a lawful order from his superior noncommissioned officer.

3.  Based on his record of indiscipline, his service clearly does not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.

4.  The evidence shows the applicant was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with regulations in effect at the time.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  The records contain no indication of procedural or other errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's 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 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)                                         AR20100022156



4


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100022156



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1