IN THE CASE OF:	   

		BOARD DATE:	  11 June 2013

		DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20120020762 


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 an honorable discharge.

2.  The applicant states he had issues with alcohol but very little was done to assist him in his rehabilitation.  On a DD Form 293 (Application for the Review of Discharge from the Armed Forces of the United States) he contends he was a good Soldier and performed exemplarily during his short period of service.  He further contends that he spent approximately 28 days in the desert working 
12-16 hours a day and he received an Army Service Ribbon and a 3-day pass upon his return.  Since his separation from the Army, he has sought rehabilitation and is currently a long-standing member of Alcoholics Anonymous.

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 5 November 1986.  He served as a utility equipment repairer.

3.  His discharge packet contains a unit commander's report which shows he was enrolled in the ADAPCP on 26 April 1988.  

4.  Around June 1988, he accepted nonjudicial punishment (NJP) under the provisions of Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) for missing morning formation as a result of wrongful previous overindulgences in intoxicating liquor or drugs, and was incapacitated for the proper performance of his duties.

5.  On 6 July 1988, his commander in consultation with the rehabilitation team determined the applicant to be a rehabilitative failure.

6.  On 16 August 1988, he was notified he was being recommended for discharge under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separation- Enlisted Personnel), chapter 9, for rehabilitation failure.  His commander cited the specific reason for his discharge was the applicant's habitual abuse of alcohol.  His commander stated "All possible help has been offered to you.  Since being enrolled in the Alcohol and Drug Abuse Prevention Control Program (ADAPCP) [the applicant] received a Company Grade Article 15 for being intoxicated and a DUI (driving under the influence)."  The applicant acknowledged receipt of the notification and after consulting with counsel, he elected not to submit a statement in his own behalf.

7.  The appropriate authority approved the recommendation for discharge on or about 25 August 1988.  He was discharged on 1 September 1988 due to rehabilitation failure under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 9.  He was issued a General Discharge Certificate.  Item 28 (Narrative Reason) of his DD Form 214 shows the entry:  "alcohol abuse – rehabilitation failure."

8.  The available record does not show the applicant ever applied to the Army Discharge Review Board for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year statute of limitations.

9.  Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.  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 the 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 is normally characterized as honorable or general under honorable conditions.

10.  Paragraph 3-7a of Army Regulation 635-200 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 was offered little in the way of rehabilitation but his record clearly shows that he was enrolled in the ADAPCP when he accepted NJP under the provisions of the UCMJ action related to his drinking and was charged with a DUI.  His commander specifically cited these acts of misconduct as the reasons for his discharge.  Accordingly, his chain of command initiated separation proceedings based on rehabilitation failure.  

2.  The applicant's administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors which would tend to jeopardize his rights.

3.  The type of discharge directed and the reasons were appropriate considering all of the facts of the case.  The evidence shows his duty performance did not meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel.  Therefore, he is not entitled to an honorable discharge.

4.  In view of the above, 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 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)                                         AR20120020762



3


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1

ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)                                         AR20120020762



2


ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


1