IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  3 April 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110018722 


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 that his general discharge be upgraded to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states he would like to have his discharge upgraded so he can obtain United Services Automobile Association (USAA) home and car insurance.

3.  The applicant provides copies of letters from the Army Review Boards Agency, Chief, Case Management Division, dated 30 August 2011, and DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States).

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 September 1979, in pay grade E-1.  He completed the training requirements and he was awarded military occupational specialty MOS 31F (Mobile Subscriber Equipment Network Switching System Operator and MOS 74C Record Telecommunications Center Operator.  He remained on active duty through continuous reenlistments and extensions.  He was promoted through the ranks to pay grade E-6.

3.  On 6 September 1988, the applicant was reduced to pay grade E-5.  However, his records do not show the circumstances surrounding his reduction.

4.  The applicant’s record shows that he was referred by his commander to the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) for evaluation on 30 July 1991.  Results revealed that his primary substance abuse was alcohol.  The rehabilitation team determined that he had a problem significant enough to warrant enrollment in Track II.  Counseling/therapy two times a month for the duration of rehabilitation and alcohol and drug information school was made available to the applicant to assist him in his rehabilitation.  He failed to make satisfactory progress towards achieving the criteria for successful rehabilitation as outlined in Army Regulation 635-200.

5.  The applicant’s commander was told that further rehabilitation efforts in a military environment were not justified in light of the applicant’s lack of progress and that discharge from military service should be effected.  On 13 January 1992, he was halted at the Army installations main gate and administered a field sobriety test and failed.  His breathalyzer test showed he blew a (.11).  The rehabilitation team recommended elimination from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9.

6.  On 7 April 1992, the applicant was notified that he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9.  He acknowledged receipt of the notification.  After consulting with counsel he declined consideration of his case before an administration separation board.

7.  The appropriate authority approved recommendation for discharge on 10 April 1992 and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  On 30 April 1992, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, due to alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure.  He completed 
12 years, 7 months, and 20 days of net active service this period.  He received a General Discharge Certificate.

8.  There is no indication the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board within its 15-year statutory limit for review.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.   

   a.  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 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.  Nothing in this chapter prevents separation of a Soldier who has been referred to such a program under any other provisions of this regulation.  Initiation of separation proceedings is required for Soldiers designated as alcohol/drug rehabilitation failures.  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.  However, an honorable discharge is required if restricted-use information was used.  

   b.  Paragraph 3-7a states 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’s contentions have been noted.  His supporting evidence has been considered.

2.  The fact that he desires to obtain USAA home and car insurance is not a basis for upgrading his discharge.  

3.  The applicant’s records show he was reduced from pay grade E-6 to pay grade E-5 on 6 September 1988.  He was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, due to alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure. In accordance with the applicable regulation, Soldiers discharged under this chapter will be characterized as honorable or general under honorable conditions.  His character of service was not completely honorable.

4.  In view of the foregoing, 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)                                         AR20110018722



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110018722



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1