IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  1 November 2012

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120007020 


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 upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states:

* his stepfather died in 1985 and he was worried about his Mom being alone so he purposely messed up to get out of the Army early
* He told his commanding officer before his stepfather died that he had a drinking problem and nothing was done
* His discharge was directly related to alcohol
* He thinks he could have finished his commitment if he had been treated for alcohol addiction 

3.  The applicant provides a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States).

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 enlisted in the Regular Army on 6 July 1982 for a period of 
4 years.  He completed his training and was awarded military occupational specialty 19E (armor crewman).

3.  Between 8 October 1985 and 11 March 1986, he was counseled for various infractions which included:

* writing a bad check
* alcohol related problems (driving while intoxicated) and being absent from formation
* loss of government property
* fighting during off-duty time
* indebtedness 

4.  On 18 March 1986, he was notified of his pending separation action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance.  The unit commander cited that the applicant could not or would not conform to the regulations of the Army and that he had been counseled several times and there had been no results.

5.  On 8 April 1986, he underwent a mental status evaluation and he was diagnosed with alcohol abuse, continuous.  The psychiatrist determined he was mentally responsible and he was psychiatrically cleared for administration action deemed appropriate by his command. 

6.  On 9 April 1986, he consulted with counsel and acknowledged notification of his pending separation action.  He also acknowledged he understood that he might encounter substantial prejudice in civilian life if a general discharge was issued.  He elected to submit a statement in his own behalf; however, his statement is not available.  

7.  On 10 April 1986, nonjudicial punishment (NJP) was imposed against him for failing to obey a lawful order and violating two lawful general regulations.

8.  On 15 April 1986, the separation authority approved the recommendation for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13 and directed the applicant be furnished a general discharge.
9.  He was discharged on 30 April 1986 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance with a general discharge.  He had served 3 years, 9 months, and 25 days of creditable active service.  

10.  On 13 August 1987, the Army Discharge Review Board denied his request for an honorable discharge.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the requirements and procedures for administrative discharge of enlisted personnel.  Chapter 13 of this regulation, in effect at the time, provides for separation due to unsatisfactory performance when in the commander’s judgment the individual will not become a satisfactory Soldier; retention will have an adverse impact on military discipline, good order and morale; the service member will be a disruptive influence in the future; the basis for separation will continue or recur; and/or the ability of the service member to perform effectively in the future, including potential for advancement or leadership, is unlikely.  Service of Soldiers separated because of unsatisfactory performance under this regulation will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions.

12.  Army Regulation 635-200, 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 or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be clearly inappropriate.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.  The applicant contends he told his commanding officer he had a drinking problem and nothing was done.  It is acknowledged he was diagnosed with alcohol abuse, not alcohol dependency/addiction, three weeks before his discharge and no evidence shows he was afforded alcohol treatment prior to his discharge.  In any case, he could have self-referred for treatment. 

2.  He contends his discharge was directly related to alcohol.  However, he also claims he purposely messed up to get out of the Army early because he was worried about his Mom being alone after his stepfather died.





3.  His record of service included numerous adverse counseling statements and one NJP.  As a result, his quality of service did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, the applicant's record of service is insufficiently meritorious to warrant an honorable discharge.

4.  His administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would have jeopardized his rights.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case. 

5.  In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.

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)                                         AR20120007020





3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120007020



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1