IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  11 August 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110003011 


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 his general, under honorable conditions discharge (GD) be upgraded to an honorable discharge (HD). 

2.  The applicant states he asked for and was denied help with treatment on two occasions.  He claims he has become an asset to his family and community and had been a model Soldier up to the point of his discharge.  

3.  The applicant provides four third-party character references, a Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) recognition certificate, and performance-related documents from his military records 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's record shows he initially enlisted in the Regular Army (RA) on 5 May 1966 and served for 2 years, 11 months, and 2 days until 2 May 1969, at which time he was honorably separated in the rank of sergeant/E-5.  On 23 June 1970, he again enlisted in the RA.  He last reenlisted on 24 November 1972, for six years, and began the enlistment under review.   

3.  The applicant's record shows he was promoted to sergeant first class/E-7 on 5 March 1979, and that this is the highest rank he attained while serving on active duty.  It also shows that during his active duty tenure, he earned the following awards:

* Army Good Conduct Medal (3rd Award)
* Army Commendation Medal
* National Defense Service Medal
* Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal
* Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon (3)
* Overseas Service Ribbon
* Driver’s and Mechanic’s Badge 
* Drill Sergeant Identification Badge

4.  The applicant’s disciplinary history includes his apprehension for driving under the influence (DUI) of alcohol in February 1981, and again on 7 May 1982; and involvement in an alcohol-related disturbance requiring police intervention in May 1982. 

5.  On 12 November 1981, the applicant was enrolled in Track II of the Army Drug and Alcohol Prevention Control Program (ADAPCP) for alcohol abuse rehabilitation at the Fort Dix, New Jersey counseling center.  His enrollment was the result of a self-referral for alcohol abuse.  During his enrollment the applicant participated in urinalysis, individual counseling, awareness education, family counseling, group therapy, and antabuse therapy.  

6.  On 29 June 1982, the Alcohol and Drug Control Officer (ADCO) completed a rehabilitation summary letter pertaining to the applicant.  In it, he indicated the applicant had drunk three beers prior to a scheduled counseling session one morning, and had admitted to drinking on at least three occasions when he was supposed to be taking antabuse.  The applicant also had a DUI in May 1982, and at that time the ADCO indicated the applicant’s counselor and the counseling center staff believed alcohol abuse would cause a conflict with the applicant’s military career.  The ADCO indicated the applicant was eligible for discharge as an ADACP rehabilitation failure.  

7.  On 9 July 1982, the unit commander notified the applicant that action was being initiated to separate him under the provisions of chapter 9 of Army Regulation 635-200, due to alcohol rehabilitation failure, with a GD.  The unit commander cited the applicant's apprehension for DUI in February 1981, his repeated use of alcohol while in ADAPCP, and his second DUI on 7 May 1982 while still in ADAPCP and the counseling center staff determination he was a rehabilitation failure.  

8.  On 9 July 1982, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the separation notification and indicated he would submit a statement in his own behalf and requested treatment at a VA medical center.  In his statement, the applicant indicated that since he entered the Army in 1966, he received only one Article 15 and two counseling statements, which were both related to indebtedness.  He stated he first recognized his problem with alcohol and entered himself in the rehabilitation program but decided the program was not helping him so he requested hospitalization at San Antonio, Texas, which was scheduled for 6 July 1982.  However, after he was again charged for DUI, he was removed from the program and his hospitalization was cancelled.  He stated that during his assignment to Fort Dix, he had never drunk on duty or been counseled for drinking.  He outlined military courses he had completed during the enlistment and indicated he completed two years of college.  He further indicated that during the enlistment he had received the AGCM and an ARCOM.  He finally stated it was his belief it would be in the best interest of the Army and himself if he were allowed to continue the ADAPCP and return to complete any assigned mission.  

9.  On 21 July 1982, the ADAPCP clinical consultant at Walson Army Community Hospital, Fort Dix, New Jersey, saw the applicant.  He stated the applicant was considered an ADAPCP rehabilitation failure.  He further confirmed the applicant was not physiologically addicted to alcohol and, therefore, transfer to a VA hospital upon release from active duty was not indicated.  He stated the applicant’s diagnosis was habitual excessive drinking.  

10   The applicant’s battalion commander completed a recommendation of approval on the applicant's discharge under the provisions of chapter 9, 
Army Regulation 635-200.  He stated he considered the applicant’s rebuttal statement along with the letter from the Fort Dix ADCO and it was apparent to him the applicant had an alcohol problem and despite efforts by ADCO, he had not gotten his problem under control.  He further indicated the applicant also had a serious indebtedness problem.  

11.  On 22 July 1982, the separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge and directed the applicant receive a GD.  On 16 August 1982, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  
12.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) issued to the applicant upon his 16 August 1982 discharge shows he completed 5 years, 8 months and 16 days of active service  during the period under review, and a total of 15 years, 1 month, and 22 days of active military service.  

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

14.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) 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.

15.  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 applicant’s request that his discharge be upgraded because he asked for and was denied treatment two times and because he had been a model Soldier to that point has been carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.  

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant was enrolled in an ADAPCP rehabilitation program and as a result of his failure to respond to counseling and treatment, and based on his continued use of alcohol while in the program, he was properly declared a rehabilitation failure by the ADAPCP staff and his commander.  

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



4.  The applicant’s post-service conduct, as attested to in the supporting statements, is noteworthy.  However, his failure to take advantage of the rehabilitation program and his continued use of alcohol in the program, including a second DUI, clearly diminished the quality of his service during the period of enlistment under review below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.  As a result, absent any evidence of record or independent evidence provided by the applicant that shows an error or injustice related to his separation processing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting 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 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)                                         AR20110003011



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110003011



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1