IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  10 November 2011

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110009147 


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 an upgrade of his general discharge under honorable conditions to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states he got out of the Army 1 month early and he was never told why he received an "under honorable conditions" character of service.

3.  The applicant provides no additional 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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 11 January 1980.  He completed training as an aircraft power plant repairer.

3.  The applicant's records contain two memoranda for record issued by the Combat Aviation Troop, 11th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Germany, dated 7 February 1983 and 11 March 1983, respectively, which show:

	a.  He was being considered for elimination from the service in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), chapter 9, but agreed to the following course of action in an attempt to prevent his elimination:

* remain in Track II, but as soon as possible enter Track III
* upon return from Track III, become the tool room custodian
* any drug-related infraction of discipline would result in immediate elimination

	b.  The applicant was dropped off at the airfield gate intoxicated and unable to pay the fare.  Both his platoon sergeant and platoon leader requested that he be given another opportunity because he had shown such good recovery since his last counseling by the troop commander.  They felt the applicant's drinking did not interfere with his duty performance.  Although the applicant failed after being given a "last chance," the troop commander allowed him to remain based on his continued excellent performance.

4.  On 6 October 1983, he was notified he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for rehabilitation failure.  His commander cited the specific reasons for his discharge as his continued poor duty performance, lateness, and decreased motivation for behavior change during his enrollment in the counseling program.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and, after consulting with counsel, he did not submit a statement in his own behalf.

5.  On 6 October 1983, his intermediate commander recommended his discharge and cited his poor performance of duty, lateness, and decrease in motivation.  Further, his commander stated the applicant's continued abuse of alcohol showed a lack of concern for his own health and welfare and that of others in the organization.

6.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on 20 October 1983.  He was discharged on 5 December 1983 due to rehabilitation failure under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9.  He was furnished a General Discharge Certificate.  Item 28 (Narrative Reason) of his DD Form 214 shows the entry:  "alcohol abuse – rehabilitation failure."

7.  The available record does not show the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

8.  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 Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program 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 is normally characterized as honorable or general under honorable conditions.

9.  Paragraph 3-7a of Army Regulation 635-200 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.  The applicant requests an upgrade of his general discharge under honorable conditions to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant contends he was never informed why he received a general discharge; however, the evidence of record shows the applicant signed his DD Form 214 which shows the reason for his discharge as "alcohol abuse – rehabilitation failure."  Further, he was given two opportunities to prevent elimination under the provisions of Army Regulation, chapter 9, and he continued to abuse alcohol.  His commander specifically cited his continued poor duty performance, lateness, and lack of motivation as the reasons for his discharge.  Accordingly, his chain of command initiated separation proceedings based on rehabilitation failure.  The evidence shows his duty performance did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to 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.

4.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

5.  In view of the above, his request should be denied.

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)                                         AR20110009147



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110009147



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1