IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:  14 February 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110015517 


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 was too good of a Soldier to have been released with a general under honorable conditions discharge.

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 14 April 1983 and he completed training as a fire support specialist.

3.  In a memorandum, dated 11 September 1985, written by the Alcohol and Drug Counselor, Clay Counseling Center, stated the applicant:

* was initially referred on 29 February 1984 for alcohol abuse
* attended classes on 25-27 February 1985
* received information on both alcohol and drugs
* had no alcohol related incidents in the past four months
* had a positive urinalysis during a selected unit urinalysis test at company organization (SUUTCO)
* had 7 other negative urinalysis tests since February 1985
* was cooperative while in the program

4.  The counselor concurred with the commander's recommendation to discharge the applicant under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations), Chapter 9, and stated the applicant felt he was unable to rehabilitate himself.

5.  On 24 September 1985, he was notified he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug and alcohol rehabilitation failure.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and, after consulting with counsel, he submitted a statement in his own behalf.  

6.  In his statement he requested an honorable discharge based on his excellent performance as a Forward Observer and his overall record of service in which he received 4 certificates of achievement.  He admitted to making mistakes and working hard to do what was expected of him without jeopardizing the safety and well being of his fellow Soldiers, civilians, or himself.  In addition, he stated that he planned to attend college upon his discharge.

7.  The applicant was barred from reenlistment on 11 October 1985.  His Bar to Reenlistment Certificate shows he received nonjudicial punishment for larceny of private property.  His commander stated the applicant's performance of duty was satisfactory, but his off duty activities and drinking constantly overshadowed any contribution he had and would make to the organization.  Further, the Soldier would not overcome his drinking problem, and would become detrimental to the organization if allowed to remain in the Army.

8.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on an unknown date.  He was discharged on 21 November 1985 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:  "drug abuse – rehabilitation failure."
9.  The available record does not show he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge.

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 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.

11.  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.  He contends that he was a good Soldier and should have received an honorable discharge.  The evidence shows his commander found the applicant's duty performance to be satisfactory but that his off duty activities overshadowed his personal and professional achievements.  Further, both the Soldier and his commander agreed that he could not overcome his drinking problem should he remain in the Army.  Accordingly, his chain of command initiated separation proceedings based on Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, drug and alcohol rehabilitation failure.

3.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

4.  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 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)                                         AR20110015517





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110015517



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1