IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  8 May 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110023194 


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 discharge be upgraded from general, under honorable conditions to honorable.

2.  The applicant states he was told his discharge would be automatically upgraded after 6 months.  He only recently found out it has not been upgraded.  He further states that at the time he was young and naïve.  He also contends that he was too ashamed to even ask for advice.  Now, many years later, he asks that his shame and ignorance be taken into consideration and grant him an upgrade of his discharge.

3.  The applicant provides no additional documentation.

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.  On 2 April 1984, the applicant, at the age of 22 years and 6 months, enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 19E (Armor Crewman).  He was subsequently assigned to Fort Riley, Kansas.

3.  On 4 March 1985, the applicant accepted nonjudicial punishment for the wrongful use of marijuana between the approximate dates of 4 September and 
3 October 1984.

4.  On 16 May 1985, the applicant, who had been enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) on 12 February 1985, was declared a rehabilitation failure because of his positive urinalysis on 8 and 21 March 1985.

5.  On 17 May 1985, the applicant underwent a mental status evaluation; wherein, the applicant's behavior was normal.  He was fully alert and oriented and displayed an unremarkable mood.  His thinking was clear, his thought content normal and his memory good.  The applicant was mentally responsible.  He had the mental capacity to understand and participate in the separation processing.

6.  On 31 May 1985, the applicant was notified of the commander's recommendation to separate him from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, due to his continued drug abuse resulting in his rehabilitation failure.

7.  On 31 May 1985, the applicant's commander initiated an administrative separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Enlisted Personnel Separations) chapter 9 due to drug abuse rehabilitation failure.

8.  On 10 June 1985, the applicant acknowledged the commander's intention to separate him and elected to make a statement in his own behalf.  Any such statement that he may have made is not in the available records.

9.  On 17 June 1985, the appropriate separation authority directed he be discharged from the Army and issued a General Discharge Certificate.

10.  On 18 June 1985, the applicant was placed in civilian confinement for a mandatory sentence on a speeding charge.

11.  On 25 June 1985, the applicant was administratively discharged.

12.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) issued upon his discharge shows he was discharged due to drug abuse - rehabilitation failure.  His character of service is shown as under honorable conditions.  He had completed 1 year, 2 months, and 16 days of creditable active duty service.

13.  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 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.  At the time of the applicant’s separation an honorable or general discharge was authorized.

	b.  Paragraph 3-7a, 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 (emphasis added), or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends that his discharge should be upgraded from general, under honorable conditions to honorable because he was young and naïve.  Furthermore, he was told his discharge would be automatically upgraded after a period of 6 months.

2.  The available evidence of record shows that the applicant was placed in ADAPCP on in February 1985 and was released from this program as a rehabilitation failure approximately 3 months later when it was determined that he had continued his use of drugs.

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 therefore were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.

5.  The applicant's contention that he was young and naive at the time is not sufficiently mitigating to warrant relief.  The Board notes that the applicant was more than 22 years of age and had satisfactory completed his initial training.

6.  There is no policy, regulation, directive or law that provides for the automatic upgrade of a less than honorable discharge from military service.

7.  In view of the above, the applicant's 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)                                         AR20110023194





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110023194



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1