BOARD DATE:	  8 May 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20110023502 


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 a correction to the rank and pay grade listed in blocks 4a (Grade, Rate or Rank) and 4b (Pay Grade), and a change to the separation authority listed in block 25 of her DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).  

2.  The applicant states she served honorably and doesn’t deserve this blemish on her DD Form 214.  

3.  The applicant provides no documentary evidence in support of the 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 record shows the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army on 
11 February 1986, and was trained in and awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 67U (Medium Helicopter Repairer).  

3.  The applicant’s DA Form 2-1 (Personnel Qualification Record) shows, in 
block 18 (Appointments and Reductions), that she was advanced to private/E-2 (PV2/E-2) on 11 August 1986, and that this is highest rank she attained while serving on active duty.  Her record documents no acts of valor or significant achievement.  Her record is void of documents or orders indicating she was ever advanced to a grade above PV2/E-2.  

4.  The applicant’s disciplinary history includes her acceptance of nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) on 6 May 1987, for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 11 to 14 April 1987.  Her punishment for this offense included a suspended reduction to private/E-1. 

5.  On 28 April 1987, the Alcohol/Drug Control Officer (ADCO)/Clinical Director, of the Fort Eustis, Virginia Counseling Center completed a memorandum confirming the Fort Eustis Community Counseling Center Staff considered the applicant a rehabilitation failure and that action to separate the applicant should be expeditiously taken.  The ADCO confirmed the applicant was determined to be an alcohol abuser and enrolled in the Track II treatment program on 
28 January 1987, and that the applicant’s progress and participation in the program were unsatisfactory.  

6.  On 8 May 1987, the unit commander notified the applicant action was being initiated to separate her under the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200.  He cited the reason for taking the action was the applicant’s inability to voluntarily control her excessive alcohol abuse habits and her failure to complete the Fort Eustis Community Counseling Center program.  The applicant acknowledged receipt of this notification and completed an election of rights in which she elected not to submit statements in her own behalf and indicated she was not requesting treatment in a VA medical center.

7.  The separation authority approved the applicant’s separation under the provisions of chapter 9, Army regulation 635-200, because of her alcohol abuse and directed she receive an honorable discharge.  On 26 May 1987, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  The DD Form 214 she was issued at the time lists her grade as PV2/E-2 and lists the separation authority as chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200.  


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 individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse.  A member who has been referred to Army Drug and Alcohol Prevention Control Program (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. 

9.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents) prescribes the separation documents that must be prepared for Soldiers on retirement, discharge, or release from active duty service or control of the Active Army.  It also establishes standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  The version of the regulation in effect at the time of the applicant’s discharge indicated the DA Form 2-1 was the source record for entries on the DD Form 214.  

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant’s request to change the separation authority and grade listed on her DD Form 214 has been carefully considered.  However, there is insufficient evidence to support this claim.  

2.  The evidence of record confirms the applicant held the grade of PV2/E-2 at the time of her discharge, as evidenced by an entry on the DA Form 2-1 and documents and orders in the record.  Further, the record shows 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.  

3.  The applicant was declared a rehabilitation failure from the ADAPCP and showed no willingness to obtain further treatment.  As a result, her discharge under the provisions of chapter 9, Army Regulation 635-200 was appropriate.

4.  In addition, there is no evidence of record or independent evidence provided by the applicant that shows she held the grade of PFC/E-3 at the time of her discharge.  As a result, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis to support granting the requested relief in this case.  



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)                                         AR20110023502



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20110023502



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1