IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  24 May 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20100026815 


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, that his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded.

2.  The applicant states he was told at the time of discharge that after 6 months his status would change to an honorable discharge but his discharge still states general.

3.  The applicant provides no supporting document.

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 record shows he initially enlisted in the Regular Army and entered active duty on 8 September 1981.  He was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 92B (Medical Lab Specialist).

3.  The applicant’s DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows he was promoted to private first class on 1 March 1983 and that this is the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty.  It further shows that on 21 October 1983 he was reduced to private (PVT). 

4.  On 28 June 1983, the applicant was command referred and enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP). 

5.  On 4 October 1983, the applicant’s ADAPCP counselor completed a statement confirming that since his enrollment the applicant had two incidents of marijuana use and an MP blotter incident which involved marijuana possession. 

6.  On 21 October 1983, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for wrongful use of marijuana and wrongful possession of marijuana. 

7.  On 16 January 1984, the applicant’s unit commander recommended the applicant’s separation under the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 
635-200, by reason of rehabilitation failure – drug abuse.  

8.  On 16 January 1984, the separation authority approved the separation action on the applicant and directed he receive a General Discharge (GD).  On            25 January 1984, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) he was issued shows he completed a total of 2 years, 4 months, and 18 days of creditable active military service.   

9.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade of his discharge within the ADRB’s 15-year statute of limitations.  

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 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.  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.  

11.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, states 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.  The evidence of record confirms the unit commander’s decision to separate the applicant was only taken after evaluating the applicant and the information provided by ADAPCP determined that, based on his history of drug abuse, further rehabilitative attempts were not justified.    

2.  The record confirms the applicant’s separation processing was accomplished in accordance with the applicable regulation.  All requirements of law and regulatory were met, and the rights of the applicant were fully protected throughout the separation process.  

3.  The applicant’s abuse of illegal drugs clearly diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  As a result, it is concluded that his discharge accurately reflects his overall record of service and it would not be appropriate to grant the requested relief in this case.  

4.  The applicant's record is devoid of any evidence and he did not provide any evidence that he was ever told he would be issued an honorable discharge in lieu of a general discharge.  In any case, the U.S. Army does not have, nor has it ever had, a policy to automatically upgrade discharges.  Each case is decided on its own merits when an applicant requests a change in discharge.  Changes may be warranted if the Board determines that the characterization of service or the reason for discharge or both were improper or inequitable.


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)                                         AR20100026815



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20100026815



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1