BOARD DATE:	  11 July 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120020660 


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 correction of his record to show he was credited with 24 months of active service.  He also requests upgrade of his general discharge to an honorable discharge.  He further requests correction of his DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty) to show he received his General Education Development (GED) Certificate.

2.  The applicant states he was never informed of his rights under the chapter 9 discharge that he received.  He felt he was discriminately singled out because of his record in Korea and he was never given the benefit of the doubt that he could be an exemplary Soldier.

	a.  He states he was not diagnosed with a depression disorder until the 1990's and he had been using alcohol to self-medicate.  His therapist and doctors over the years concur he has always had a depression disorder, and he was diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

	b.  The staff at the veterans' service office informed him of benefits for honorably discharged veterans, but he does not meet the requirements due to the lack of 24 months of continuous active service.

3.  The applicant provides:

* a letter from Mercy Homeless Shelter, Inc., Wilmington, NC, dated
28 September 2012
* 
a self-authored chronological military history statement, dated
27 September 2012
* his DD Form 214

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 3 February 1981, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Army for a period of 3 years.  On 16 July 1981, he was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 31st Infantry in Korea.

3.  He accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15, Uniform Code of Military justice (UCMJ) on:

* 12 December 1981 for failing to go at the time prescribed to his appointed place of duty and being derelict in the performance of his duties
* 15 March 1982 for purchasing an alcoholic beverage while being posted as a sentinel
* 10 April 1982 for failing to have in his possession a valid overnight pass
* 21 April 1982 for failing to have in his possession a valid overnight pass

4.  On 15 June 1982, he received his High School Diploma Equivalency Certificate from the North Carolina State Board of Community Colleges.

5.  On 23 August 1982, he was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 47th Infantry at 
Fort Lewis, WA.

6.  On 1 November 1982, he accepted NJP under the provisions of Article 15, UCMJ for being absent without leave (AWOL) from 20-25 October 1982

7.  An Alcohol and Drug Control Officer provided a summary of the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Program (ADAPCP) efforts in the applicant's case.

	a.  The applicant had a 4-year history of alcohol and drug abuse and seemed to have tolerance for alcohol and experienced frequent blackouts.  He reported "loss of control" and also indicated regular marijuana use.

	b.  The applicant failed to demonstrate any effort to comply with the treatment plan.  He failed to maintain abstinence.  It was not felt he was retainable as a Soldier and a recommendation of rehabilitation failure was made based on his continued drinking.

8.  On 17 December 1982, the applicant's commander notified him that he was initiating action to discharge him under the provisions of Army Regulation 
635-200 (Personnel Separations - Enlisted Personnel), chapter 9.  The commander stated his reason for the proposed discharge was his having been deemed an ADAPCP rehabilitation failure.  He advised the applicant he could receive an honorable or general, under honorable conditions, discharge.

9.  The commander advised the applicant of his right to:

* consult with counsel
* request a hearing before an administrative board if he had more than 
6 years of total active and reserve military service
* submit statements in his own behalf
* obtain copies of documents that would be sent to the separation authority
* withdraw any waiver of rights at any time prior to the date the discharge authority directs or approves his discharge

10.  On 17 December 1982, the applicant acknowledged he had been notified of the action under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9.  He did not:

* desire military legal counsel for consultation be appointed to assist him
* submit statements in his own behalf for consideration

11.  On 17 December 1982, his commander recommended him for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, due to rehabilitation failure.

12.  On 20 December 1982, the appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, and directed the applicant be furnished a General Discharge Certificate.

13.  On 30 December 1982, the applicant was discharged under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9, by reason of alcohol abuse - rehabilitation failure, with a general discharge.  He completed 1 year, 9 months, and 3 days of creditable active service with 5 days of time lost.  Item 16 (High School Graduate or Equivalent) of his DD Form 214 contains an "X" in the "NO" block.

14.  The applicant subsequently applied to the Army Discharge Review Board (ADRB) for an upgrade his discharge.  On 29 February 1984, the applicant was advised that the ADRB reviewed and denied his request for upgrade.  The ADRB determined his discharge was proper and equitable and that the discharge was properly characterized as under other than honorable conditions.

15.  He provided a letter from the Mercy Homeless Shelter, Inc, dated
28 September 2012.  The President, Board of Directors, Executive Director (Acting) stated the applicant:

* has been sober for 3 years
* is working fervently toward becoming a good and productive community citizen
* is working to transition himself to a better life and back into a household
* is currently attending Cape Fear Community College

16.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the administrative separation of enlisted personnel.  

	a.  Chapter 9 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 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 are no longer practical.  At the time of the applicant's separation an honorable or general discharge was authorized.

	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 received his GED certificate during the period of service covered by his DD Form 214.  Therefore, item 16 of his DD Form 214 should be corrected to show an "X" in the "YES" block.

2.  On 17 December 1982, he was informed of the reason for his proposed discharge and advised of his rights.  He was properly and equitably discharged in accordance with the regulations in effect at the time.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons for separation were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.  His record contains no indication of procedural or other errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.  Therefore, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for upgrading his discharge or changing the narrative reason for separation.

3.  His continued alcohol abuse while enrolled in the ADAPCP and his failure to complete the program clearly show he did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.

4.  His post-service conduct is noted.  However, post-service conduct alone is not sufficient to change a properly issued discharge.  Although he contends it has been many years since his discharge, the ABCMR does not upgrade discharges based solely on the passage of time.

5.  He was properly and equitably discharged after completing 1 year, 9 months, and 3 days of a 3-year enlistment.  Absent evidence of inequity or injustice, there is no basis for crediting him with service he did not actually complete.  The ABCMR does not correct records solely for the purpose of making an individual eligible for veterans' benefits.

6.  In view of the foregoing, there is an insufficient evidentiary basis for granting the portions of the applicant's request pertaining to the period he served and the characterization of his service.

BOARD VOTE:

________  ________  ________  GRANT FULL RELIEF 

___X__  ___X_____  ____X____  GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF 

________  ________  ________  GRANT FORMAL HEARING

________  ________  ________  DENY APPLICATION

BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:

1.  The Board determined that the evidence presented was sufficient to warrant a recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by deleting from item 16 of this DD Form 214 the "X" in the "NO" block and replacing it with an "X" in the "YES" block.

2.  The Board further determined that the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of the application that pertains to:

	a.  being credited with 24 months of active service; and

	b.  upgrading his general discharge to an honorable discharge.



      __________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)                                         AR20120020660



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120020660



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1