BOARD DATE:	  27 September 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120006300 


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 discharge under honorable conditions to honorable.

2.  The applicant states that it's been almost 27 years and he has been sober for 25 years.  He also worked in Iraq from August 2007 to May 2009.  He was ashamed to request to have his discharge changed.

3.  The applicant provides:

* DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty)
* character reference letter
* three Certificates of Appreciation

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 Regular Army for 4 years on 28 June 1983.  He completed training and was awarded military occupational specialty 12B (Combat Engineer).  He was promoted to pay grade E-4 in June 1985.  He served in Germany from 29 November 1983 to 28 November 1985.

3.  In a memorandum, dated 7 June 1985, the Clinical Director, Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP), summarized the applicant's ADAPCP rehabilitation activities.

	a.  The applicant was enrolled in the ADAPCP on 17 August 1984 resulting from a drug overdose (attempted suicide) and alcohol abuse.  The applicant was enrolled in Track II and participated in 13 group and 2 individual sessions.

	b.  The applicant's progress during his 302 days in the program had been poor.  He had been involved in three alcohol-related incidents since his referral.  He had not accepted the fact that he had an alcohol problem.  He appeared emotionally immature and unable to accept responsibility for his actions.  His potential for successful rehabilitation was poor.

4.  On 25 June 1985, 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, with an honorable or general discharge.  The company commander stated:

	a.  The reasons for the proposed action were:  (1) efforts to rehabilitate him had proven futile; (2) numerous counselings by his chain of command had negative results; (3) his immaturity and problems following orders from his chain of command; and (4) his involvement in several alcohol-related incidents, the most recent resulting in him assaulting a senior noncommissioned officer (NCO) and being arrested.

	b.  The applicant had been enrolled in the ADAPCP and his progress had been poor at best.  He was a disruptive influence and could not be trusted to perform the most menial task.  As a result, the applicant was not the type of Soldier the U.S. Army needed to retain.

5.  On 25 June 1985 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 not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

6.  On 27 June 1985, he accepted nonjudicial punishment under Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), for willfully disobeying a lawful order from his superior NCO, treating said NCO with contempt in language, assault intentionally inflicting grievous bodily harm on another Soldier, and being drunk and disorderly on or about 3 June 1985.  He did not appeal the nonjudicial punishment.  

7.  On 8 July 1985, he underwent a mental status evaluation.  His behavior was found to be normal.  His was found to be fully alert, fully oriented, and his mood was flat.  His thinking process was found to be clear, his thought content was normal, and his memory was good.  He had the mental capacity to understand and participate in proceedings.

8.  On 15 July 1985, the appropriate separation authority approved the applicant's discharge and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

9.  He was discharged under honorable conditions (general) in pay grade E-3 on 22 July 1985 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, by reason of drug abuse – rehabilitation failure.  He was credited with completing 2 years and 25 days of net active service with no lost time.

10.  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.

11.  He provides a character reference letter speaking to his duties during employment with a company in Iraq.  He also provides three Certificates of Appreciation he received while working with this company in Iraq.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 9, in effect at the time, contained the authority and outlined 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 discharge under honorable conditions.

13.  Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7a, states an honorable discharge is a separation with honor.  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 inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The evidence of record shows the applicant was enrolled in the ADAPCP on 17 August 1984 after a drug overdose (attempted suicide) and alcohol abuse.  His progress during his 302 days in the program was poor and he was involved in three alcohol-related incidents since his referral.  It was also noted that he had not accepted the fact he had an alcohol problem.

2.  He was subsequently issued an Article 15 for willfully disobeying and assaulting a senior NCO and being drunk and disorderly.  In June 1985, his company commander felt that rehabilitative efforts had proven futile and the applicant was not the type of Soldier the U.S. Army needed to retain.  The company commander initiated action to eliminate the applicant from the Army under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9.

3.  He acknowledged the proposed separation and was subsequently discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, as a drug abuse rehabilitation failure.  His contentions and the documentation he submitted 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 diminished the quality of his service below that meriting a fully honorable discharge.

4.  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.

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 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)                                         AR20120006300



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120006300



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1