BOARD DATE:	  4 September 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120004917 


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, under honorable conditions discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states:

	a.  After writing a formal letter and requesting a meeting with the commanding officer, which was granted, he was informed that 6 months after his discharge his discharge would be upgraded to an honorable discharge.  He did not realize his discharge had not been upgraded until he recently requested his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty).

	b.  His intentions for this request are not for any monetary gain or to receive any benefits as he realizes that he is not entitled due to the fact that he did not complete his term.  He feels that given his unblemished record to include his National Guard service and the facts surrounding his discharge, he feels that he was forced to choose between his family and his country because of someone else's irresponsibility and reckless behavior.  

   c.  The facts leading up to the incident took place with a fellow Soldier getting drunk with Italians while he was on duty.  His job was to monitor the security panels.  Upon his return to the area, he confronted the Soldier with his irresponsibility and the dereliction of duty.  The Soldier became enraged and grabbed his weapon, a struggle ensued and this Soldier gained possession of the weapon by head butting him with it.  The senior person who was off duty for the first 8 hours awoke to the loud confrontation, and they were able to subdue the Soldier, until they were relieved of duty at 8:30 pm.  He wasn't allowed to go home to his family because there would be an investigation.  He proceeded to have a few drinks to calm his nerves.  The duty officer woke him at 3:00 am to get his statement.  The duty officer informed him that he would be court-martialed along with the other troop members for drinking while on duty.  This was not the truth and then they proceeded to send his newlywed wife and 5-year old adopted son home to the States, prior to the investigation being completed.
   
   d.  The reason he failed the drug and alcohol program wasn't so much a denial attitude, but for the simple fact of them sending his wife home and she was 6 months pregnant with their second child.  On a private's pay he couldn't afford to bring her back overseas for the remainder of his term, so he requested the alcohol program failure so that he could return home prior to the birth of their second child.  He didn't want to have his wife raise 2 children alone while he finished his term.

3.  The applicant provides a completed DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States) and his DD Form 214 and General Discharge Certificate.

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's military records show he enlisted in the Massachusetts Army National Guard (MAARNG) on 4 April 1978.  He entered active duty for training (ADT) on 1 September 1978.  He was honorably released from ADT on 24 November 1978 and was transferred to an ARNG unit.  He was discharged from the MAARNG on 22 October 1981.

3.  He enlisted in the Regular Army, in pay grade E-2, on 26 January 1982.  He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty (MOS) 15D (Lance Crewmember).  He served in Italy from 10 May 1982 through on or about 13 September 1983.  

4.  He twice accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for behaving disrespectfully towards his superior non-commissioned officer by using disrespectful language on 26 May and 30 July 1983.

5.  In a memorandum, dated 30 June 1983, the applicant's company commander advised the applicant of his intention to disqualify him from the Personnel Reliability Program (PRP).  The company commander stated that he no longer felt the applicant was qualified to perform his PRP duties because on 25 May 1983 the applicant was derelict in the performance of his duties as an entry controller in that he failed to alert the senior custodial agent that the IDS panel monitor, private first class Sxxxxxx, had left his post and returned drunk.  Furthermore, the applicant's blood alcohol test that was taken on 26 May 1983 reflected .72 mg of alcohol per 1.0 ml of blood, and was an indication that he consumed alcohol while on duty as an entry controller.  Those actions and the applicant's apathetic attitude during the investigation of that incident constituted evidence of unsuitability for retention in the PRP.  The applicant was advised of his rights.

6.  The PRP disqualification was approved on 1 July 1983.

7.  A Psychiatric Evaluation, dated 1 July “1982,” stated he was oriented during the interview and did not show any symptoms of sickness.  He had a good insight of his problems.  He was cleared for administrative action.

8.  On 10 August 1983, the applicant's company commander advised the applicant that he was initiating action for his discharge pursuant to the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel) , chapter 9, for his failure to adequately effect a cure for his alcohol addiction and his lack of desire to limit his intake of those substances.  The company commander stated the applicant's drinking resulted in his disqualification from the PRP, indicating a problem.  His enrollment in the alcohol counseling program ended in his dismissal as a rehabilitative failure.  Because of his punishments, he had been reduced in rank to a point where his future promotion potential was doubtful.  His chances for reenlistment were poor, his potential in the military was at a minimum level, and his discharge was certainly appropriate in his case.

9.  In a memorandum, dated 11 August 1983, the Clinical Director, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP), summarized the applicant's ADAPCP rehabilitation efforts.  The memorandum stated that the applicant was enrolled in the ADAPCP on 15 April 1983 for an evaluation as being a possible drug user, but also admitted to having a drinking problem.  The applicant enrolled in Track II rehabilitation and participated in 4 sessions of individual counseling and 8 sessions of group counseling.  He also included his spouse for a joint counseling session.  The applicant's progress during the first 90 days was unsatisfactory and he had 2 instances of episodic abuse of alcohol, one of which resulted in a permanent disqualification from the PRP.  The applicant's potential for successful rehabilitation was poor.

10.  On 15 August 1983, after consulting with counsel, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the proposed action to separate him under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, for abuse of alcohol, and its effect.  He acknowledged he might be issued a general discharge and the results of the issuance of such a discharge.  He waived his rights and elected to submit a statement in his own behalf.  

11.  In his statement, dated 23 August 1983, the applicant stated that he was aware of the request of his dismissal from the Army due to alcohol addiction.  He did not want to remain in the U.S. Army due to the incident and prior and present personnel problems involving his spouse's maternity status and dependents also. He requested to be discharged under honorable conditions for the following reasons:

* his prior service in the Army National Guard for a period of 24 months and 27 days prior to changing from reserve to active status
* receipt of an honorable discharge
* his present MOS
* receipt of a Letter of Appreciation and Letter of Commendation in 1983
* to protect his honor and to avoid substantial prejudice in civilian life

12.  On 29 August 1983, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant’s discharge and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.  

13.  He was discharged in pay grade E-2 on 13 September 1983, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, by reason of alcohol abuse - rehabilitation failure, with a general, under honorable conditions discharge.  He was credited with completing 1 year, 7 months, and 18 days of net active service during the period under review and no time lost.

14.  There is no evidence he applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

15.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 9 contained the authority and outlines the procedures for discharging individuals because of alcohol or other drug abuse.  A member who had been referred to the Army's ADAPCP for alcohol/drug abuse could be separated because of inability or refusal to participate in, cooperate in, or successfully complete such a program if there was a lack of potential for continued Army service and rehabilitation efforts were no longer practical.  The individual could be issued an honorable or general, under honorable conditions discharge.

16.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, stated an honorable discharge was a separation with honor.  The honorable characterization was appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally had met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel or was otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was enrolled in April 1983 in the ADAPCP after admitting to having a drinking problem.  In a memorandum to his company commander, the ADAPCP Clinical Director stated that the applicant's potential for rehabilitation was poor.  In August 1983, the applicant's company commander initiated action to discharge the applicant for alcohol abuse based on the applicant's failure to adequately effect a cure for his alcohol addiction and his lack of desire to limit his alcohol intake.  

2.  He acknowledged the proposed separation and submitted a statement in his own behalf.  He was subsequently discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, as an alcohol abuse rehabilitation failure.  His contentions are acknowledged; however, he was properly separated for rehabilitation failure and he has submitted neither probative evidence nor a convincing argument in support of his request.  His misconduct during his period of service from January 1982 to September 1983 diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.

3.  Without evidence to the contrary, it appears his administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

4.  In view of the circumstances in this case, he is not entitled to an upgrade of his general discharge.  


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)                                         AR20120004917





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120004917



6


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1