IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  23 August 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120003802 


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 wants his record corrected because he believes he was not given a full hearing to explain his erratic behavior.  In early April 1986, his fiancée was tragically killed in an automobile accident just 3 weeks prior to their wedding.  This traumatic event left him in a very severely depressed state.  He compensated by using whatever drugs he had available.  He feels his commanding officer and noncommissioned officers (NCOs) did not allow him the opportunity to find the help he needed.

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 19 October 1983, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army.  He completed his initial training and was awarded military occupational specialty 57E (Laundry and Bath Specialist).

3.  On 21 February 1984, the applicant departed Fort Lee, Virginia for duty in Europe.  He was assigned to the 24th Supply and Service Company until 
12 August 1985, when he returned to the United States for duty at Fort Sill, Oklahoma.

4.  On 7 October 1985, the applicant was assigned to the 47th Medical Hospital for duty as a laundry and bath specialist.

5.  On 26 February 1986, he accepted nonjudicial punishment for the wrongful use of marijuana and for being disrespectful in language towards an NCO.

6.  In a letter dated 7 March 1986, the Clinical Director of the Army Drug and Alcohol Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP), located at Fort Sill, stated that:

	a.  on 9 August 1985, the applicant had entered the Community Counseling Center (CCC) in Giessen, Germany as a self-referral for alcohol abuse;

	b.  the applicant had departed Germany prior to attending any counseling sessions and was instructed by his counselor and commander to report to the CCC when he arrived at Fort Sill;

	c.  the applicant had arrived at Fort Sill in September 1985;

	d.  on 11 November 1985, notification from the CCC in Giessen had arrived at the CCC at Fort Sill;

	e.  the applicant had attended one screening interview session, two individual sessions, six group sessions;

	f.  the applicant was a no show for two sessions;

	g.  the applicant had one rehabilitation team meeting and three command consults;

	h.  the applicant's 2 January 1986 urinalysis resulted in a positive finding for marijuana; and

	i.  on 26 February 1986, based on all of the above information and the applicant's deteriorating duty performance, the commander declared the applicant a rehabilitation failure.
	
7.  On 7 April 1986, the applicant was notified by his commander of his intention to initiate 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 8 April 1986, the applicant indicated that he had consulted with counsel and would submit a statement in his own behalf.

9.  On 9 April 1986, the applicant wrote the following statement: "I think I should be kept in the Army.  I got off to a bad start in my military career and I think that I can adapt to the military's way of life.  I know that I have messed up a lot in my first year in the service but I have paid for the things that I have done.  I like the military because I like being a part of the driving force that guards our country and also because I am learning something new every day.  I think I'm a hard worker and I obey all orders given to me.  I am sincere in what I say Sir and if you still decide to chapter me then I know that you think it's for the best."

10.  On 9 April 1986, the applicant’s commander recommended separation from the service under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for drug rehabilitation failure.

11.  On 9 April 1986, the appropriate separation authority directed he be discharged from the Army and issued DD Form 257A (General Discharge Certificate).  He was discharged accordingly on 15 April 1986.

12.  The applicant's DD Form 214 shows he was discharged due to drug abuse - rehabilitation failure.  His character of service is shown as under honorable conditions.  He had attained the rank of private first class, pay grade E-3, and had completed 2 years, 5 months, and 27 days of creditable active duty service.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations) 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 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.

14.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, states 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 contends that his discharge should be upgraded from general under honorable conditions to honorable because he was not afforded the opportunity to a full hearing to explain his erratic behavior.  He further implies that his behavior was the result of his fiancée's tragic death in an automobile accident in early April 1986, just 3 weeks prior to their wedding.

2.  The available evidence of record clearly shows that the applicant was placed in ADAPCP in August 1985 and had attended sessions at Fort Sill after returning from Germany in September 1985.  He was released from this program in February 1986 due to his continued use of marijuana and a determination by his commander and counselor declaring him a rehabilitation failure.

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 the death of his fiancée was the cause of his erratic behavior is not supported by the available evidence of record.  The applicant wrote a statement in his own behalf wherein he made no mention of his fiancée dying, or the effect it had on him.  Further, he offered no documentary evidence with this case to support his contention at this late date.

6.  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)                                         AR20120003802





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120003802



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1