IN THE CASE OF:	  

		BOARD DATE:	  30 May 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120020133 


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 discharge from general to honorable.

2.  The applicant states his father died in 1988 and this loss caused him great pain.  He drank to ease the pain and when his drinking got out of hand he sought assistance from his battery commander.  Together they agreed that he should enroll in an alcohol rehabilitation program.  He successfully completed the program and was sent back to his unit.  After he returned to his unit, he was informed that his mother was terminally ill with cancer and this news made him start drinking again.  He was also going through a divorce at the same time.  He requested a hardship discharge but was offered a general discharge.  He accepted it because it was the only way he could be there to help his mother during her time of need.

3.  The applicant provides no additional evidence.

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 21 April 1987.  After completing initial entry training, he was awarded military occupational specialty 13B (Cannon Crewmember).

3.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military Justice, for being drunk on duty as a cannoneer.

4.  His records contain a memorandum, Headquarters, U.S. Military Community Activity Augsburg, dated 25 January 1989, subject:  Summary of Community Counseling Center Rehabilitation Efforts for (Applicant).  The clinical director stated:

* the applicant was command referred on 15 October 1987
* the initial screening/evaluation found the applicant had a significant history of alcohol abuse
* the applicant was enrolled in Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) Track II on 24 March 1988 and subsequently changed to Track III on 13 April 1988
* the applicant was released early from in-patient services due to his failure to participate fully in the rehabilitation
* the ADAPCP recommended his rehabilitation failure based upon lack of compliance and his commander concurred
* the rehabilitative team determined that further efforts in a military environment were not justified
* he recommended the applicant's separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), chapter 9, or other appropriate separation action

5.  On 27 February 1989, the applicant's immediate commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him from the Army for alcohol and/or drug abuse rehabilitation failure in accordance with Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9.  His commander stated, "You were command referred [on] 10 November 1987 as a result of an alcohol related incident.  After that you were subsequently enrolled in Track II and then in January of 1988 you enrolled in Track III due to another act of misconduct related to overindulgence of alcohol.  Even though you did not complete residential treatment to standard, you were not declared a "rehabilitation failure."  For a time, you showed some signs of willingness to participate in the aftercare program but recently (as recent as 21 January 1989) you were observed consuming alcohol.  Your demonstrated reluctance to abstain from consuming alcohol, even when undergoing treatment, leaves me no alternative but to recommend that you be separated from the U.S. Army."

6.  On 28 February 1989, the applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification memorandum, was advised of the basis for the contemplated separation for ADAPCP failure, the type of discharge he could receive and the possible effects of this discharge, the procedures and rights available to him, and the effect of any action taken by him in waiving his rights.  He requested to be represented by counsel and to submit a statement in his own behalf.

7.  On 28 February 1989, he stated he arrived in Germany in September 1987 and had trouble with alcohol abuse almost from the time he arrived.  He enrolled in the Track III residential treatment program and was released early.  He began to drink again after his father passed away.  In early January 1989 after being alcohol free for 6 months, he applied for leave to visit his ill mother and was denied because he did not have enough accrued leave.  This precipitated his drinking again.  His command gave him many chances to overcome his problem and he regretted that he did not make the most of them.  He believed that he could overcome his problem with alcohol once he was reunited with his family.  He requested an honorable discharge in order to support his mother and his wife.

8.  The separation authority approved the applicant's discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, and directed the issuance of a General Discharge Certificate.

9.  On 20 March 1989, the applicant was discharged accordingly.  His DD Form 214 shows his service was characterized as under honorable conditions.

10.  There is no indication that the applicant applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

11.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.

	a.  Chapter 9 contains the authority and outlines the procedures for discharging Soldiers 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.  Initiation of separation proceedings is required for Soldiers designated as alcohol/drug rehabilitation failures.  The service of Soldiers discharged under this chapter will be characterized as honorable or under honorable conditions unless the Soldier is in entry-level status and an uncharacterized description of service is required.

	b.  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 requests an upgrade of his discharge.

2.  He contends that his alcohol abuse was brought on by his father's death, his mother's terminal illness, and marital issues, but he provided no evidence to support his contention.  He also indicated that his abuse of the alcohol started before his father’s death.  The evidence of record shows the applicant suffered from an alcohol abuse problem and that he was provided several opportunities to overcome his problem, including counseling and referral to and enrollment in the ADAPCP.  However, he showed poor rehabilitation potential and he was subsequently declared an ADAPCP rehabilitation failure.

3.  Accordingly, his immediate commander initiated separation action against him.  All requirements of law and regulation were met and his rights were fully protected throughout the separation process.  There does not appear to be an error or an injustice in his discharge.

4.  Based on his record of ADAPCP failure, alcohol-related incidents, and at least one instance of NJP, the applicant's service clearly did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  This misconduct rendered his service unsatisfactory.  Therefore, the applicant's service does not warrant an honorable discharge.

5.  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 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)                                         AR20120020133



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120020133



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1